At 01:11 PM 3/6/2008 +0100, Manlio Perillo wrote: >Manlio Perillo ha scritto: > > [...] > > > > I'm not sure that having two standards is the best solution, since it > > will complicate the implementation of a WSGI middleware. > >A correction: it should be WSGI gateway and not WSGI middleware.
On the contrary, it will simplify gateway implementation, if bridges are available. Async gateways would implement WSAI, synchronous gateways would implement WSGI. The wsgiref library could include a standard bridge or two to go in each direction (WSGI->WSAI and WSAI->WSGI), and the gateway would provide some support for spawning, pooling, or queueing of threads, where threads are needed to make the conversion from WSAI to WSGI (since in the other direction, you can simply block waiting for a callback). The APIs could be provided through some standardized environ keys defined in the WSAI spec. _______________________________________________ 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
