[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0

[Manlio Perillo]

Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> At 12:41 PM 10/5/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
>> > In other words, those flags were to support legacy frameworks detecting
>> > that they were in an incompatible hosting environment.  However, IIUC,
>> > there is no such existing framework that could meaningfully use the 
>> flag
>> > you're proposing, that has any real chance of being portable to
>> > different WSGI environments.
>>
>> This is true, but I continue to think that it is worth adding that flag.
>> Asynchronous support is available in Nginx mod_wsgi, and in the future
>> someone can implement a WSGI gateway for lighttpd.
> 
> Right now, the definition of the flag is not sufficiently defined for my 
> taste.  You have only proposed that it be set to indicate that 
> interleaved execution is possible -- but it is *always* possible to have 
> interleaved execution in WSGI 1.0, so the only reason to add the flag to 
> WSGI 2.0 would be so a server could promise NOT to interleave 
> execution.  And what good is that?
> 

Ok, here is more useful definition.

If wsgi.asynchronous evaluates to true, then the WSGI application *will* 
be executed into the server main process cycle and thus the application 
execution *will* be interleaved (since this is the only way to support 
multiple concurrent requests).



Regards  Manlio Perillo