Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> [...]
>
> Personally I believe that WSGI 1.0 should die along with Python 2.X. I
> believe that WSGI 2.0 should be developed to replace it and the
> introduction of Python 3.0 would be a great time to do that given that
> people are going to have to change their code
Hey,
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Graham Dumpleton
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > In the case
Hey,
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> > Personally I believe that WSGI 1.0 should die along with Python 2.X. I
> > believe that WSGI 2.0 should be developed to replace it and the
> > introduction of Python 3.0 would be a great ti
Brian Smith ha scritto:
Manlio Perillo wrote:
Fine with me but there is a *big* problem.
WSGI 2.0 "breaks" support for asynchronous applications
(since you can no more send headers in the app iter).
WSGI 1.0 doesn't guarentee that all asynchronous applications will work
either, because it al
Let me get this right. You are complaining that the WSGI 2.0 would
break your non standard extension which was never a part of the WSGI
1.0 specification to begin with.
I also find it interesting that in the very early days you were
pushing very very hard for WSGI 2.0 to be specified and you had n
At 09:37 AM 3/6/2008 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>You probably need to explain the second half of that sentence a bit
>better. From memory the WSGI 1.0 specification says that for an
>iterable, the headers should be sent upon the generation of the first
>non empty string being yielded. How does
