At 01:02 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Supporting legacy and huge WSGI applications is not really a
priority for me.
Then you should really make it clear to your users that your Nginx
module does not support WSGI. The entire point of WSGI is to allow
legacy (i.e. already-written
On 08/10/2007, Manlio Perillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
At 01:02 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Supporting legacy and huge WSGI applications is not really a
priority for me.
Then you should really make it clear to your users that your Nginx
module
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
On 08/10/2007, Manlio Perillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
At 01:02 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Supporting legacy and huge WSGI applications is not really a
priority for me.
Then you should really make it clear to your users
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
[...]
I don't think there's any point to having a WSGI extension for If-*
header support.
I have just found that the WSGI spec says:
...it should be clear that a server may handle cache validation via
the If-None-Match and If-Modified-Since request headers and
2007/10/8, Manlio Perillo:
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
[...]
I don't think there's any point to having a WSGI extension for If-*
header support.
I have just found that the WSGI spec says:
...it should be clear that a server may handle cache validation via
the If-None-Match and
2007/10/8, Manlio Perillo:
However there are two problems here:
1) It is not clear if WSGI explicitly allows an implementation to skip
the iteration over the app_iter object, for optimization purpose
2) For a WSGI implementation embedded in an existing webserver, the
most convenient
Thomas Broyer ha scritto:
2007/10/8, Manlio Perillo:
However there are two problems here:
1) It is not clear if WSGI explicitly allows an implementation to skip
the iteration over the app_iter object, for optimization purpose
2) For a WSGI implementation embedded in an existing webserver,
At 06:25 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
[...]
I don't think there's any point to having a WSGI extension for If-*
header support.
I have just found that the WSGI spec says:
...it should be clear that a server may handle cache validation via
the
On 09/10/2007, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:25 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
[...]
I don't think there's any point to having a WSGI extension for If-*
header support.
I have just found that the WSGI spec says:
...it should
At 08:23 AM 10/9/2007 +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
On 09/10/2007, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:25 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
[...]
I don't think there's any point to having a WSGI extension for If-*
header support.
On 09/10/2007, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:23 AM 10/9/2007 +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
On 09/10/2007, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:25 PM 10/8/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
[...]
I don't think there's any
11 matches
Mail list logo
