Ignore last, over sensitive laptop touch pad :) On 06/10/2007, Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Phillip J. Eby ha scritto: > > At 10:13 PM 10/5/2007 +0100, Robin Bryce wrote: > >> That's to much chicken/egg for my tastes. All you are really saying is > >> that the CGI model covers the majority of 'common' use cases. I don't > >> know of anyone who would disagree with this. But as things stand all > >> wsgi-ish implementations which aim to support async/sync are consigned > >> to the dust bin of 'non conformant'. This acts as a strong > >> disincentive to experiment and innovate. > >> > >> If, for clear technical reasons, nothing can be done so support mixing > >> async aware and synchronous applications in WSGI 2.0, then so it goes. > >> > > I don't see the reason to mix async and sync applications, in the same > way that it is not possible to mix a thread unsafe application with a > threaded server. >
There are plenty of stateless synchronous wsgi components out there that I would like the option of serving as is. As the person choosing the components in my wsgi stack I'm perfectly capable of deciding whether such a synchronous app is safe in the context of an asynch server. _______________________________________________ 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
