Phillip J. Eby ha scritto: > At 11:04 AM 10/6/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote: >> As an example, the WSGI write callable cannot be implemented in a >> conforming way in Nginx. > > ...unless you use a separate thread or process. >
I'm insisting about asynchronous support in WSGI because Nginx *does not supports threads*. It has some thread support but it is *broken*. Even if in future the problems are solved, the threading model of Nginx *will break* many existing WSGI applications, since the WSGI iteration can be resumed in different threads. Of course, a WSGI application can use threads, but i think that it *needs* a wsgi.pause_output extension, for synchronization. > [...] >> Another possible solution is that reading from input is allowed to raise >> an EAGAIN exception, like in the previous example. > > Which is *way* more complex than the CPS approach. If we're going to > make it *harder* to write applications, there's no point to having a > WSGI 2.0, since 1.0 is already hard enough to implement. :) > It is a know fact that asynchronous programming is hard. Multithread programming is even more harder, but nobody seems to care. 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
