Re: [Web-SIG] PEP 444 feature request - Futures executor

2011-01-11 Thread Timothy Farrell
Quartz is certainly powerful, but I think it's outside the scope of something we want in a WSGI spec. Is there a specific feature you're referring to? - Original Message - From: "Nam Nguyen" To: "Timothy Farrell" Cc: "P.J. Eby" , web-sig@python.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:28:

Re: [Web-SIG] PEP 444 feature request - Futures executor

2011-01-11 Thread P.J. Eby
At 09:11 PM 1/10/2011 -0600, Timothy Farrell wrote: PJ, You seem to be old-hat at this so I'm looking for a little advise as I draft this spec. It seems a bad idea to me to just say environ['wsgi.executor'] will be a wrapped futures executor because the api handled by the executor can and li

Re: [Web-SIG] Declaring PEP 3333 accepted (was: PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0)

2011-01-11 Thread Alice Bevan–McGregor
On 2011-01-10 13:12:57 -0800, Guido van Rossum said: Ok, now that we've had a week of back and forth about this, let me repeat my "threat". Unless more concerns are brought up in the next 24 hours, can PEP be accepted? It seems a lot of people are waiting for a decision that enables imple