; in that URL, using ‘x-wsgiorg.’ prefix keys.
>
> Graham
>
>
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 4:13 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
> I am not speaking about websockets. You could use it for SSE, or some apps
> could use the Upgrade header to upgrade from http to their own protocol
> et
the participants of this thread ready to discuss
it?
- benoît
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 at 23:37, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 9:27 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
> again. any server can do such implementation if we create a new Resource
> abstraction. This abstraction w
-- Forwarded message -
From: Benoit Chesneau
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 at 06:12
Subject: Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI
To: Graham Dumpleton
I am not speaking about websockets. You could use it for SSE, or some apps
could use the Upgrade header to upgrade
like in smtp, imap, ... so the servers that
implement a specific extension can legally published it. Would it work for
you?
benoit
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 at 21:28, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
>
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 2:48 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:57
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:57 AM Robert Collins
wrote:
> On 20 January 2016 at 12:04, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
> >
> > not at all. But I made the assumption that the wsgi server maintained a
> > thread directly or not where the python application is running .
> >
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:58 PM Robert Collins
wrote:
> On 20 January 2016 at 05:55, Cory Benfield wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Thanks so much for your feedback to my original request for comments on
> the future of WSGI. You provided a ton of really useful feedback: when
> printed out on my printer
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:34 PM Graham Dumpleton <
graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 20 Jan 2016, at 8:29 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:49 PM Graham Dumpleton <
> graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:49 PM Graham Dumpleton <
graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 20 Jan 2016, at 7:43 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
> I will make a more complete answer soon. But about:
>
>
>>
>> Socket Escape Hatch
>> ~~~
I will make a more complete answer soon. But about:
>
> Socket Escape Hatch
> ~~~
>
> Aside from Benoit, server operators were unanimously dismissive of the
> idea of a socket 'escape hatch'. In general it seems like servers would not
> be capable of achieving this. I think, there
what do you need asynchronous? And how the current callback system can't
fit the needs of an an asynchronous lib? what do you miss actually?
Note that http and http2 are not asynchronous. Imo we need a new WSGI spec
and a Messaging gateway spec. but these are orthogonal discussions imo.
- benoit
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:29 AM Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
>
> On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:13 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
> So for me what should be WSGI 2? WSGI 2 should add against WSGI 1 the
> following:
>
> - tell to the application it is actually an HTTP2 request (maybe
>
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:19 AM Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> Hello Benoît,
>
> Thanks for clarifying that you also had the reverse problem in mind,
> headers sent by applications. This side is less problematic in the sense
> that application authors can adapt to
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:17 PM Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augustin.2...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> Hello Benoît,
>
>
> Le mardi 5 janvier 2016 14:13:48 UTC+1, Benoit Chesneau a écrit :
>>
>> Header formats which are btw US-ASCII in the HTTP spec now, could be
Hi all,
Hopefully this discussion won't turn in another useless political
discussion :)
About the need of a new spec aka WSGI 2 or whatever the name you want to I
would say it's definitely needed. But contrary to the others I don't think
it has to be that new, or breaking. If you follow closely t
On Tuesday, October 14, 2014, Robert Collins
wrote:
On 14 October 2014 01:18, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>> C - Support for chunked uploads, comet, bosh and websockets is
>> effectively impossible within WSGI - one ends up writing server
>> specific code, and being tied to a si
On Tuesday, October 14, 2014, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/13/2014 12:12 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> > So I should probably know you, but I can't recollect right now what
> > you do or write.
>
> Seriously? On
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Robert Collins
wrote:
> On 30 September 2014 11:47, Alan Kennedy wrote:
>
> > [Robert]
> >> So it sounds like it should be the responsibility of a middleware to
> >> renormalize the environment?
> >
> > In order for that to be the case, you have strictly define
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Robert Collins
wrote:
> On 13 October 2014 17:12, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> >
> > OK,
> >
> > So I should probably know you, but I can't recollect right now what you
> do
> > or write.
>
&g
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:10 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
> > So PJE, please step back and do not go rushing out to create a PEP. That
> is
> > the worst thing you could do at this point and will only serve to deter
> > people from the community
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:58 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Robert Collins
> wrote:
> > So I propose we drop the write callable, and include a queue based
> > implementation in the adapter for PEP- code.
>
> If you're dropping write(), then you might as well drop
> sta
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Robert Collins
wrote:
> Is the write callable still needed? Its documented as a undesirable
> thunk in PEP-; is there a good reason to keep it, or can we make
> start_response return None and require the use of a generator to
> supply content for the body?
>
>
done.
The form it could take should be discussed first but imo that a good way to
engage the community. What do you think?
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Benoit Chesneau
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 20,
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Robert Collins
> wrote:
> > Well, thats certainly a challenge :). Whats the governance model here?
> > Is a PEP appropriate, and if so - that gives us a BFDL or BFDL
> > PEP-delegate to decide between bike
Hi,
I would prefer to have this work being done transparently. If we do it
rationally it could work imo.
Anyway before thinking to change the protocol or criticizing it maybe we
could first collect the requirements in HTTP 2 (stream and such) so we can
think about possible implementations. And s
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Simon Sapin wrote:
> Le 14/07/2012 06:07, Graham Dumpleton a écrit :
>
>>2. Is the socket FD the same mechanism like nginx? If you upgrade
>> nginx
>>binary, restart nginx, the existing http connection won't break.
>>
>> I would be very surprised if
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On 6/5/12 11:46 AM, Roberto De Ioris wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Gunicorn can already bind (or better, accept) from file descriptors
>> specifying an environment variable.
>
> I don't think you can start gunicorn using a file descriptor, or I failed
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
>>
>> On 21 February 2012 20:26, Simon Sapin wrote:
>> > Le 21/02/2012 09:23, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :
>> >
>> >> Instead of having to provide two or three objects sepa
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> Hello
>
> I need to be able to call a function when the web application shuts down
> (SIGTERM/SIGINT) -- the use case is to stop a background thread.
>
> I am currently using signals because it seems to be the most clean way to do
> this. atexi
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Jonas H. wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> What is SERVER_PORT supposed to be set to if the WSGI server is only bound
> to a Unix socket?
>
> Some major Web servers (Gunicorn, CherryPy) set it to the empty string.
> Intuitively I'd rather not set it at all.
>
> What do y
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Although [PEP ] is still marked as draft, I personally think of it
>> as accepted; [...]
>
> What does it take to get PEP formally marked as accepted? Is
> there anythin
-- Forwarded message --
From: Benoit Chesneau
Date: Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Web-SIG] PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0
To: Alice Bevan–McGregor
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Alice Bevan–McGregor
wrote:
> On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
>>
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Robert Brewer wrote:
> However, the caveat requires a caveat: servers must still be able to protect
> themselves from malicious clients. In practice, that means allowing servers
> to close the connection without reading the entire request body if a certain
> nu
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Marcel Hellkamp wrote:
> I just discovered a problem that affects most WSGI server
> implementations and most current web-browsers (tested with wsgiref,
> paste, firefox, chrome, wget and curl):
>
> If the server closes the connection while the client is still uplo
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Armin Ronacher
wrote:
>> 4. The web3 spec says, "In case a content length header is absent the
>> stream must not return anything on read. It must never request more
>> data than specified from the client." but later it says, "Web3
>> servers must han
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 16.09.2010 23:07, schrieb James Mills:
>>> - the web3 name
>>>
>>> If there is any value in this PEP and we find something to decide on,
>>> there is no reason this couldn't be WSGI 2. But until it's just
>>> something a small part of
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 Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Gustavo Narea wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We're considering migrating from mod_wsgi to FastCGI (Apache) because we'll
> need to use versions of Python compiled by ourselves.
>
> In addition to the research I've done and the pre-deployment tests we'll
> carry out, I'd love
-- Forwarded message --
From: Benoit Chesneau
Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Web-SIG] gunicorn 0.1 - new WSGI HTTP Server
To: Tres Seaver
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Interesting: how are you detecting slow clients in product
Hi,
Quick mail to announce the gunicorn 'Green Unicorn' 0.1. it is a WSGI
HTTP Server for UNIX, fast clients and nothing else. This is a port of
Unicorn (http://unicorn.bogomips.org/) in Python.
You can find it here :
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/gunicorn/0.1
Current features are limited to the
Hi all,
As external I'm a bit surprised and also disappointed about actual
process about choosing/discussing next features or changes of SGI spec.
I thought and I think process should be more formal. Like I see it
since some months, there are people trying to put their views and
technical
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:12 AM, René Dudfield wrote:
Why is the raw url needed(very rarely)?
Sometimes there are bugs. Access to the raw string lets you work
around those bugs... if you need to. Dropping to a lower level is
needed sometimes.
Some APIs require you to send back an exact copy of
41 matches
Mail list logo
