On 2011-01-07 09:04:07 -0800, Antoine Pitrou said:
Alice Bevan–McGregor <al...@...> writes:
I don't understand why you want a "yield" at this level. IMHO, WSGI
needn't involve generators. A higher-level wrapper (framework,
middleware, whatever) can wrap fd-waiting in fancy generator stuff if
so desired. Or, in some other environments, delegate it to a reactor
with callbacks and deferreds. Or whatever else, such as futures.
WSGI already involves generators: the response body.
Wrong.
I'm aware that it can be any form of iterable, from a list-wrapped
string all the way up to generators or other nifty things. I
mistakenly omitted these assuming that the other iterables were
universally understood and implied.
However, using a generator is a known, vlaid use case that I do see in
the wild. (And also rely upon in some of my own applications.)
Right, that's why I was suggesting you drop your concern for Python 2
compatibility.
-1
There is practically no reason for doing so; esp. considering that I've
managed to write a 2k/3k polygot server that is more performant out of
the box than any other WSGI HTTP server I've come across and is far
simpler in implementation than most of the ones I've come across with
roughly equivelant feature sets.
Cross compatibility really isn't that hard, and arguing that 2.x
support should be dropped for the sole reason that "it might be dead by
the time this is ratified" is a bit off.
Python 2.x will be around for a long time.
- Alice.
_______________________________________________
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
