[Web-SIG] process ..

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

Re: [Web-SIG] PEP 444 (aka Web3)

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net 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

Re: [Web-SIG] PEP 444 (aka Web3)

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Armin Ronacher armin.ronac...@active-4.com 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    

Re: [Web-SIG] Most WSGI servers close connections to early.

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Marcel Hellkamp m...@gsites.de 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

Re: [Web-SIG] Most WSGI servers close connections to early.

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Robert Brewer fuman...@aminus.org 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

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

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss ja...@jacobian.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org 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

Re: [Web-SIG] A 'shutdown' function in WSGI

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Web-SIG] A 'shutdown' function in WSGI

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Sylvain Hellegouarch s...@defuze.org wrote: On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 February 2012 20:26, Simon Sapin simon.sa...@exyr.org wrote: Le 21/02/2012 09:23, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :    Instead of

Re: [Web-SIG] Starting Web Servers using socket FDs

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org 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

Re: [Web-SIG] question about connection pool, task queue in WSGI

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Simon Sapin simon.sa...@exyr.org 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 you

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI for HTTP/2.0 ?

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

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI for HTTP/2.0 ?

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net 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

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI for HTTP/2.0 ?

. 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 bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 9

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI2: write callable?

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:58 PM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net 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

Re: [Web-SIG] Draft 2: WSGI Response Upgrade Bridging

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:10 PM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Web-SIG] Draft 2: WSGI Response Upgrade Bridging

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: On 13 October 2014 17:12, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote: ... OK, So I should probably know you, but I can't recollect right now what you do or write. Its not clear to me who you were

Re: [Web-SIG] REMOTE_ADDR and proxys

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: On 30 September 2014 11:47, Alan Kennedy a...@xhaus.com 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,

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

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

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:29 AM Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:13 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So for me what should be WSGI 2? WSGI 2 should add against WSGI 1 the > following: > > - tell

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

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

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

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 <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:49 PM Graham Dumpleton < > graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wr

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

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 <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I will make a more complete answer soon. But about: > > >> >> Socket Escape Hatch >

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

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,

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

he participants of this thread ready to discuss it? - benoît On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 at 23:37, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Jan 2016, at 9:27 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > again. any server can do such implementation if we

[Web-SIG] Fwd: Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

-- Forwarded message - From: Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 at 06:12 Subject: Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI To: Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com> I am not speaking about websockets. You could us

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

reference to what is described > in that URL, using ‘x-wsgiorg.’ prefix keys. > > Graham > > > On 21 Jan 2016, at 4:13 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am not speaking about websockets. You could use it for SSE, or some apps > could use the Upgrade hea

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:57 AM Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > On 20 January 2016 at 12:04, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > not at all. But I made the assumption that the wsgi server maintained a > > thread directly

Re: [Web-SIG] Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

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 <graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 21 Jan 2016, at 2:48 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@g