Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 11:27 PM, Cory Benfield wrote: > > All, > > **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do? Should we do > it at all?** > > It’s a new year, and that means it’s time for another attempt to get WSGI 2.0 > off the ground. Many of you may

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > I think that WSGI got many things right - thats why so many things > support it - but identifying which of its attributes is a factor for > success, and which isn't is really hard: we're a decade on, more or >

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

I should also say - thanks for picking this up. I may have been a tad on the grumpy side on my prior mail - new years paging-in-of-everything-after-a-break. -Rob On 5 January 2016 at 01:27, Cory Benfield wrote: > All, > > **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

So, as Graham said, I think calling it 2.0 is a bit of an issue - HTTP/2.0 and WSGI 2.0 are not synonymous, given the diverse requirements we have. On 5 January 2016 at 01:27, Cory Benfield wrote: > All, > > **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do?

[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

All, **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do? Should we do it at all?** It’s a new year, and that means it’s time for another attempt to get WSGI 2.0 off the ground. Many of you may remember that we attempted to do this last year with Rob Collins leading the charge, but

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 14:48, Damjan Georgievski wrote: > >> **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do? Should we do >> it at all?** > … >> - Support websockets >> - Support HTTP/2 > > What does HTTP/2 support mean? What features of HTTP/2 need to be >

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Hi, On 04/01/2016 16:15, Cory Benfield wrote: I don’t believe that will work. Correct. This cannot be done except for very simplistic servers. Regards, Armin ___ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 12:27, Cory Benfield wrote: > > All, > > **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do? Should we do > it at all?** Having set up the conversation, I also want to take part in it. So let me outline what I think we need from WSGI 2. In

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

>>> **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do? Should we >>> do it at all?** >> … >>> - Support websockets >>> - Support HTTP/2 >> >> What does HTTP/2 support mean? What features of HTTP/2 need to be >> exposed in the wsgi api? > > (CC-ing the list) > > The current WSGI API

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Hi, I personally probably do not want to participate in this discussion much but I want to leave some thoughts in case someone finds them useful. I personally think that fundamentally "concurrent programming" and just getting access to a socket is not something that fits into a generically

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 14:56, Damjan Georgievski wrote: > **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do? Should we do it at all?** >>> … - Support websockets - Support HTTP/2 >>> >>> What does HTTP/2 support mean? What features of HTTP/2

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 15:08, Armin Ronacher wrote: > > I honestly do not think that you can have it both ways: a WSGI specification > and a raw socket. Maybe we reached the point where WSGI should just be > deprecated and frameworks themselves will fill the gap. We

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Hi, On 04/01/2016 16:30, Cory Benfield wrote: Your core question seems to be: “why do we need a spec that specifies concurrency?” I think this is reasonable. One way out might be to take the route of ASGI[0], which essentially uses a message broker to act as the interface between server and

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Thought I should weigh in on this, as I got mentioned by name in it. Sorry about maybe not getting the threading right, I wasn't subscribed to the list still it sprang from the grave this morning! So, to quote the reply I just sent to Cory in django-developers: I don't think ASGI would be a