2011/8/1 Dhananjay Nene <dhananjay.n...@gmail.com>:
> After Armin Ronacher's post
> http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/7/27/the-pluggable-pipedream/ P. J. Eby
> responded with
> http://dirtsimple.org/2011/07/wsgi-is-dead-long-live-wsgi-lite.html
> with an implementation at https://bitbucket.org/pje/wsgi_lite/
>
> While I could potentially read up the details and find the answers -
> wondering if I can lazily wait to find their way into my inbox :)
>
> How could the above proposal (if it does) help in
>
> a) Creating simpler, lighter frameworks (eg. flask)
> b) Help support greater asynchronicity (a la tornado, node.js etc.)
WSGILite looks just like a syntactic sugar for changing:
def app(env, start_response):
...
start_response(status, headers)
...
return body
to
@lite
def app(env):
return status, headers, body
I don't see how it is solving the async problem.
There was PEP-444 to replace WSGI (called WEB3), but that is still in
Draft stage.
Quoting the async support from it:
"If the origin server advertises that it has the web3.async
capability, a Web3 application callable used by the server is
permitted to return a callable that accepts no arguments. When it does
so, this callable is to be called periodically by the origin server
until it returns a non-None response, which must be a normal Web3
response tuple."
This is not really async. The server has to keep pooling the app to
see if it is ready to return more data.
Anand
_______________________________________________
BangPypers mailing list
BangPypers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
