> On 6 Jan 2016, at 09:48, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If this does solve the push issue, what is there in HTTP/2 then that one 
> couldn’t do via the existing WSGI interface?

Well, plenty, but none that we’d *want* to expose via WSGI with the possible 
exception of long-running bi-directional communications channels like 
Websockets, which you’ve already expressed a desire to expose in a different 
API. =)

Pushing via Link headers is not ideal because it delays the push until after 
the headers are ready to go, and there’s a tricky ordering concern here (RFC 
7540 points out that any PUSH_PROMISE frames should be sent before the response 
headers and body are sent, which means that we temporarily block the response 
that is ready to go from WSGI. This is a minor concern, but worth noting.)

However, I’m happy to say that Pushing via Link headers is the way to go if 
we’d rather not specify a WSGI-specific API for it.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Web-SIG mailing list
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig

Reply via email to