On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:57 AM Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On 20 January 2016 at 12:04, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > not at all. But I made the assumption that the wsgi server maintained a > > thread directly or not where the python application is running . > > > > In any case there is some sort of wrapping done in the same > thread/process > > where the python application is running. And then nothing stop to give > the > > socket away to the application and tell to the server to stop to > communicate > > with it. > > What socket? > > Data could be being passed by shm, for instance. > > -Rob > > While shared memory would be quite a bad idea, then why not. I still don't see why having a way to upgrade the connection can't be done. Call it I/O resource or Socket, the issue is the same. At the end nothing stop the server to pass the control to the app. If we forget the socket (which is btw the simplest design) then the server could stop to control the I/O resource when the application ask it to do it. At some point either a garbage collection or a basic resource return/claim flow could be used to definitely free the resource. The thing behind that is that it would allow the WSGI spec to only focus on providing a strict gateway workflow without forcing the application to adopt a concurrency model aync or not. - benoit.
_______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
