Graham Dumpleton ha scritto:
2008/5/7 Christopher Stawarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On May 5, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
If write() isn't to be returned by start_response(), then do away with
start_response() if possible as per discussions for WSGI 2.0.
I think start_response() is necessary, because the application may need to
yield for I/O readiness (e.g. to read the request body, as in my example
app) before it decides what response status and headers to send.
One could come up with other ways of doing it which aligns better with
WSGI 2.0. I previously gave an idea as a starting point for
discussion, but don't think others really understood what I was
suggesting. But then I did post it at 4am in the morning in the middle
of a baby induced period of sleep deprivation. See post 24 in:
http://groups.google.com/group/python-web-sig/tree/browse_frm/thread/74c1f8cf15adf114/d98086a8db568ebd?rnum=24
I think what was missed by others was that I wasn't suggest that the
102 code be sent all the way back to the client, but as a convention
between WSGI application and underlying WSGI adapter only, to
facilitate the ability to return control back to the WSGI adapter
before one had decided what actual response headers to send. This
seems to align with what you want.
Its seems a bit more complex to implement then the start_callable.
Moreover the whole point of removing the start_callable is to simplify
the writing of middlewares.
With your solution it seems that writing middlewares will not became
more easy.
Graham
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
