[Web-SIG] WSGI and asyncio (tulip)?

[Robert Collins]

On 15 October 2014 10:04, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
...
> (that's for the HTTP part; a websockets layer would probably implement
> a separate transport and accept a separate protocol factory; actually,
> it could be implemented as a protocol that would parse the websockets
> protocol and provide its own transport on top of that... there may
> already be such a thing on the Internet :-))

So thats the bit that I'm having conceptual trouble with - servers may
well implement the framing (and I rather think that they have to do so
in some deployments), so we need to make sure that we don't do that in
this context - we're behind an abstraction.

With the HTTP example you gave, it looks fine, and I'm sure that
equivalents can be made for websockets etc too.

The question in mind is whether that is amenable to the same
unification and layering that WSGI brought to the HTTP synchronous
case. It looks like you'd make a protocol factory decorator. Will it
be sufficiently flexible and interoperable to be something that
becomes a lingua franca? I don't know pep-3156 well enough to judge
that myself.

Seems to me that there are two broad directions here: we can have a
WSGI-thing where it looks just a little different to WSGI, or we can
have a pep-3156 Protocol interface. We can share a bunch of logic
either way - e.g. CONTENT_LENGTH etc, but the mechanics of writing
middleware might be quite different.

-Rob

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