Phillip J. Eby ha scritto: > At 07:53 PM 10/4/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote: >> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto: >> > At 06:58 PM 10/4/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote: >> >> But why you are against adding a new environ value (not necessary >> named >> >> wsgi.asynchronous), that will explicitly state if the WSGI server will >> >> interleave the WSGI application? >> > >> > Why do you think it's useful? >> >> For the same reason you think wsgi.multiprocess is useful. > > Actually, I don't think it's all that useful; IIRC, it was added as a > compromise to the spec, to fend off a proposal for a more complex > server-capabilities API. :) >
Ok. > Also, there's an important difference between your proposed addition and > the multiprocess/multithread flags, which is that there existed > frameworks that could be ported to WSGI that only supported one model or > the other. I.e., frameworks that could only run multi-threaded, or only > multi-process. > > In other words, those flags were to support legacy frameworks detecting > that they were in an incompatible hosting environment. However, IIUC, > there is no such existing framework that could meaningfully use the flag > you're proposing, that has any real chance of being portable to > different WSGI environments. This is true, but I continue to think that it is worth adding that flag. Asynchronous support is available in Nginx mod_wsgi, and in the future someone can implement a WSGI gateway for lighttpd. Regards Manlio Perillo _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
