Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> On 06/03/2008, Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But I have to say that:
>>
>> 1) the asynchronous model is the "right" model to use to develope
>> robust and scalable applications (expecially in Python).
>
> No it isn't. It is one model, it is not n
Brian Smith ha scritto:
> Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> 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 gua
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> [...]
>
> In part adding to what Brian is saying, you (Manlio) speak as if WSGI
> 2.0 is already somehow set in stone
Well, Philip J. Eby explicitly said that WSGI 2.0 exists only for
removing the use of start_response...
So I assume that it is already set in sto
Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
> On 07/03/2008, Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Moreover with an asynchronous gateway it is possible to implement a
>> "middleware" that can execute an application inside a thread.
>>
>> This is possible by creating a pipe, starting a new thread, having
On 07/03/2008, Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it true that Apache can spawn additional processes,
Yes, for prefork and worker MPM, but not winnt on Windows. See for
example details for worker MPM in:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/worker.html
> By the way, I know there i
Brian Smith ha scritto:
> Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> Brian Smith ha scritto:
>>> We already have standard mechanisms for doing something
>>> similar in WSGI: multi-threaded and multi-process WSGI
>>> gateways that let applications block indefinitely while
>>> letting other applications run.
>> Ok, bu
