Re: Collating follow-up on the future of WSGI

On 21 January 2016 at 11:27, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote:
> again. any server can do such implementation if we create a new Resource
> abstraction. This abstraction would expose a common api to read and write.
> The implementation would be specific to the server.
>
> Now like we have wsgi.thread I would instead suggest to add a system of
> capability or extension like in smtp, imap, ... so the servers that
> implement a specific extension can legally published it. Would it work for
> you?

I don't understand this 'any server can do it' thing. nginx for
example, has no actual socket per connection for the uwsgi backends:
the data is multiplexed over a dedicated uwsgi framing layer, and the
server is responsible for HTTP framing itself.

Sure, Python servers that have done listen() and accept() do have a
real socket to expose, but thats a small subset of the implementations
of WSGI>

-Rob



-- 
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/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org