[Web-SIG] PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0

[Guido van Rossum]

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Masklinn <masklinn at masklinn.net> wrote:

> On 2011-01-02, at 21:38 , Alice Bevan–McGregor wrote:
> > On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
> >>> I'd suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary, until
> we reach some sort of technical impasse it doesn't address.
> > Async is one area that 3333 does not cover, and that by not having a
> standard which incorporates async means competing, incompatible solutions
> have been created.
> >
> If I remember the previous Web3 discussion correctly, the result was
> basically that async has no business being shoehorned in WSGI, that WSGI's
> model is fundamentally unfit for async and you can't correctly support sync
> and async with the same spec, and therefore an asynchronous equivalent to
> WSGI should be developed separately, in order to correctly match the needs
> of asynchronous servers and interfaces, without the cruft and inadequacies
> of being forked from a synchronous gateway model.
>

Masklinn, those are pretty strong words (bordering on offensive). I'm sure
Alice has a different opinion. Alice, hopefully you can write down your
ideas for all to see? Perhaps you have an implementation too? Maybe seeing a
concrete proposal will help us all see how big or small of a shoehorn will
be needed.

(Just trying to keep this thread from degenerating into a shouting match.)

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/attachments/20110102/c2db1dff/attachment.html>