Re: WSGI2: write callable?

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Robert Collins <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Is the write callable still needed? Its documented as a undesirable
> thunk in PEP-3333; is there a good reason to keep it, or can we make
> start_response return None and require the use of a generator to
> supply content for the body?
>
> (Remembering that for backwards compatibility we're going to write an
> adapter, and a generator adapter is straightforward (if tedious) using
> a threading.Queue).
>
> I haven't done a survey, but I don't recall seeing anything except
> bespoke WSGI code that used the write interface - all the frameworks
> I've seen in some time use the iterator protocol.
>
> So I propose we drop the write callable, and include a queue based
> implementation in the adapter for PEP-3333 code.
>
> -Rob
>
>
What would be the advantage of using a queue compared to simply write to
the server? Internally the server can use queue, but why the client should
know it? What is the reasoning behind it?

- benoit




> --
> Robert Collins <[email protected]>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Converged Cloud
> _______________________________________________
> Web-SIG mailing list
> [email protected]
> Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/bchesneau%40gmail.com
>

_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org