It's worth noting that I was discouraged from making ASGI a PEP by several
Python core developers, which is why I have not been pursuing that process
any further. I'm not sure I share this view, so I may come back to it in
the future, but there's a reason it's not in the process right now.
As for
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 7:35 AM M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 28.10.2018 05:15, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> > Right. This is why I think I'm unsure quite how to approach replacing it.
>
> Why would you want to replace it, if what you have in mind is a
> different standard for a differen
this is not required for things to function and people to develop
against it, but it wasn't required for WSGI either, so in some ways the
reason I think it should be a PEP is pretty much purely because WSGI is.
Andrew
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Andrew Godwin
> wrote:
> &
Hi everyone,
I'd like to breach the topic of standardising an asynchronous successor to
WSGI - specifically, the ASGI specification I and a group of other Python
web developers have been refining over the past couple of years (you can
read more at https://asgi.readthedocs.io/en/latest/).
I'm
