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 suit
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
> less, and the ecosystem is a l
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 4:42 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:12 AM, 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
> > etc... The only discussion
Hi all,
As some of you may know, I've been working over the past few months to
bring native WebSocket support to Django, via a project codenamed "Django
Channels" - this is mostly the reason I've been involved in recent WSGI
discussions.
I'm personally of the opinion that WSGI works well for HTTP
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Cory Benfield wrote:
>
> > On 10 Mar 2016, at 00:34, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> >
> > To that end, I did some work to make the underlying mechanism Django
> Channels uses into more of a standard, which I have codenamed ASGI; while
> initia
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
> I think you're right, and I've just been stubbornly trying to use a dict as
>> it's slightly "nicer". I honestly considered making both sides dict and
>>
>
>
>
> I realise this may sound bikesheddy, but it would be really good to
> not call it ASGI. From your docs "
> Despite the name of the proposal, ASGI does not specify or design to
> any specific in-process async solution, such as asyncio, twisted, or
> gevent. Instead, the receive_many function
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Robert Collins
wrote:
> On 11 March 2016 at 10:34, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I realise this may sound bikesheddy, but it would be really good to
> >> not call it ASGI. From your docs "
> >> Despi
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Cory Benfield wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 2016, at 23:56, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
> I would indeed want to require servers to always fold headers together
> into a comma-separated list, as that's what the RFC says, and it then means
> applications
One thing I did want to ask - is it worth still squashing everything down
to the same case? Daphne already clears out headers with _ in them to avoid
that CVE about it, and header case is never semantic, or so I thought?
Andrew
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
>
&g
owercase
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Andrew Godwin
> wrote:
>
>> One thing I did want to ask - is it worth still squashing everything down
>> to the same case? Daphne already clears out headers with _ in them to avoid
>> that CVE about it, and header c
11 matches
Mail list logo
