Re: WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

Cory Benfield <[email protected]> Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:53:14 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.python.web
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 14:48, Damjan Georgievski <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> **TL;DR: What do you believe WSGI 2.0 should and should not do? Should we do it at all?**
> …
>> - Support websockets
>> - Support HTTP/2
> 
> What does HTTP/2 support mean? What features of HTTP/2 need to be
> exposed in the wsgi api?

(CC-ing the list)

The current WSGI API does not provide any consensus method for doing server push. Such a thing could absolutely be done as an extension to WSGI in its current form, and we should consider that.

More generally, HTTP/2 is a bit more generous with what can be done with a stream than is the case in HTTP/1.1. For example, a stream could in principle be kept open indefinitely and used as a bi-directional communications channel: WSGI in its current form does not make that easy to do.

Cory

_______________________________________________
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

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 801 B)