On 13 April 2010 23:55, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 14:46, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
>> The last attempt was to have WSGI 1.1 as clarifications and Python 3.X.
>>
>> And when I say 'last attempt', yes there have been people who have
>> stepped up to try and get this to happen
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 14:46, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> The last attempt was to have WSGI 1.1 as clarifications and Python 3.X.
>
> And when I say 'last attempt', yes there have been people who have
> stepped up to try and get this to happen in the past. I think you
> would be the 3rd time, exclu
On 13 April 2010 22:12, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 14:01, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
>> They are not simplications. They are clarifications or just describing
>> existing practice. They are not necessarily mod_wsgi specific.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were mod_wsg
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 14:01, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> They are not simplications. They are clarifications or just describing
> existing practice. They are not necessarily mod_wsgi specific.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were mod_wsgi specific, and they
definitely look sane/like an improve
On 13 April 2010 21:46, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:39, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
>> WSGI 2.0 isn't about Python 3.X, it is about removing start_response().
>
> Okay, so it is orthogonal, right?
>
>> Python 3.X support can be catered for by clarifications in the WSGI
>> 1.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:39, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> WSGI 2.0 isn't about Python 3.X, it is about removing start_response().
Okay, so it is orthogonal, right?
> Python 3.X support can be catered for by clarifications in the WSGI
> 1.0 specification and to a degree how Python 3.X is implement
On 13 April 2010 21:20, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:13, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
>> There is no such thing as a WSGI 2.0 PEP and there is no proper
>> concensus either on what it should look like. Thus if you see anything
>> claiming to implement WSGI 2.0, then it isn't a
Dirkjan Ochtman ha scritto:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:13, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
>> There is no such thing as a WSGI 2.0 PEP and there is no proper
>> concensus either on what it should look like. Thus if you see anything
>> claiming to implement WSGI 2.0, then it isn't and you should only v
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:13, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> There is no such thing as a WSGI 2.0 PEP and there is no proper
> concensus either on what it should look like. Thus if you see anything
> claiming to implement WSGI 2.0, then it isn't and you should only view
> it as an experimental proposa
On 13 April 2010 20:59, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:53 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>> At 04:08 PM 4/8/2010 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Some time ago I objected the decision to remove start_response function
>>> from next version WSGI, using as rationale the fact
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:53 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 04:08 PM 4/8/2010 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Some time ago I objected the decision to remove start_response function
>> from next version WSGI, using as rationale the fact that without
>> start_callable, asynchronous extension
On 13 April 2010 20:41, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>>> So, when executing a sub request, it is necessary to flush (that is,
>>> send to Nginx, in my case) the content generated from the template
>>> before the sub request is done.
>>
>> This seems to only makes sense if you're saying that the subreques
On 13 April 2010 18:22, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
>> [...]
>>> Just yielding an empty string does not give the server some important
>>> informations.
>>>
>>> As an example, with x-wsgi.suspend application can specify a timeout,
>>> that tells the server that the applica
P.J. Eby ha scritto:
> At 10:18 PM 4/8/2010 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> Suppose I have an HTML template file, and I want to use a sub request.
>>
>> ...
>> ${subrequest('/header/'}
>> ...
>>
>> The problem with this code is that, since Mako will buffer all generated
>> content, the result respo
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> [...]
>> Just yielding an empty string does not give the server some important
>> informations.
>>
>> As an example, with x-wsgi.suspend application can specify a timeout,
>> that tells the server that the application must be resumed before
>> timeout milliseconds hav
15 matches
Mail list logo
