[Web-SIG] Draft 2: WSGI Response Upgrade Bridging

[Robert Collins]

On 13 October 2014 16:59, PJ Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Robert Collins
> <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
>> FWIW I'm totally fine with you bringing together that PEP - as you say
>> its complementary to what I'm focused on (I believe I even suggested
>> you might want to do that).
>
> Did you have any feedback on the proposal itself?  I'm particularly
> counting on you to tell me if I've horribly misunderstood something
> important about the use cases or the requirements for the protocols
> themselves.

Not yet. Really just got back to stuff today. Rather than digging a
hole for myself by commenting until I've absorbed it, let me do that
and then I'll comment. :)

> I think that the "upgrade" model I've presented will enable you to
> happily design completely new API paradigms without having to figure
> out how to tunnel them through a maze of WSGI middleware, with the
> exception of having reasonable ways to present the incoming request as
> a WSGI request.  But if I've missed something there, please let me
> know.

Sure will. As I said earlier on in our thread, I'm not convinced that
presenting new things as WSGI1 requests makes sense. I understand your
arguments about adoption, but as I understand it WSGI itself started
with nothing implementing it, and yet its now a very common lingua
franca. So - I'd like to defer thinking too hard about the migration
path, other than ensuring that its possible - and your draft may well
be instrumental in some of the conversion paths needed. More once I've
absorbed it.

-Rob

-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud