[Web-SIG] WSGI for HTTP/2.0 ?

[Benoit Chesneau]

got an idea. What about having a page collecting feedback from anyone in
the python community about this topic. So we can have true data from
different perspectives: developer, library/framework author, server author.
I'm OK to collect the data from it and make a summary of it once it's done.

The form it could take should be discussed first but imo that a good way to
engage the community. What do you think?



On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan at ochtman.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Robert Collins
>> <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
>> > Well, thats certainly a challenge :). Whats the governance model here?
>> > Is a PEP appropriate, and if so - that gives us a BFDL or BFDL
>> > PEP-delegate to decide between bikeshed issues; and if its not a
>> > bikeshed issue then resolving it is actually necessary.
>>
>> Yes, I think a good way forward would be to have a small cabal write a
>> PEP and then announce it here for further feedback and then
>> pronouncement by a BDFL or -delegate. If you want to be lead/editor,
>> that sounds great. It also seems like you should definitely involve
>> Graham and give credence to his thoughts.
>>
>> I'd be excited about this and happy to give feedback a little later
>> once you've got some initial draft, as someone who likes to implement
>> his applications directly on top of WSGI for now (but I've also
>> implemented a couple of WebSocket servers).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dirkjan
>>
>>
> Last time was more about everyone wanted to discuss about the changes with
> its own requirement list.  Which is already conflicting. Discussing if it
> should be done outside the media designed for it is already out of topic
> imo. So I won't discuss about it further.
>
> Instead I wonder what is the appropriate medium to collect requirements
> and others stuffs about it. Wiki ? Anything else?
>
> For  a start I see these different topics
>
>
> 1) HTTP 1.1 vs HTTP 2:
>
> -  HTTP 1.1 and HTTP2 have quite the same high level syntax (methods, uri,
> headers, ...) but the way the data is transported differs. (data are sent
> by frames in HTTP 2).
> - in HTTP 2, data can be encrypted and compressed.
> - in HTTP2 data can pushed from the server to the clients. More data can
> be sent to the client
> - in HTTP2 streams are multiplexed We have the concept of data channels
> and these are more like message passings. Multiplexing existed in HTTP 1.1
> with pipelines but is barely supported right now by WSGI servers.
>
>
> The concept of data channels and the PUSH features will requires more
> concurrency at the server level.
>
> At the application, things doesn't change that much. Everything can appear
> like before. The only change is the PUSH feature.
>
>
> 2) Websockets, SSE and other similar protocoles are completely
> asynchronous.  All this part is not really handled by WSGI. The way it is
> generally implemented right now is awkward. The server generally extend the
> WSGI protocol so the application get the socket. Then a specific library
> handle the rest.
>
>
> I actually wonder if websockets or other asynchronous protocols should be
> handled  by the new WSGI SPEC. Shouldn't we just standardize the way the
> socket is given to another library?
>
>
> Anyway I think we should collect all requirements at application and
> server level and then start to confront the current WSGI spec to them. And
> iterate. Thoughts? Any other topic?
>
> - benoit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/attachments/20140920/4e689042/attachment.html>