[Twisted-web] Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI woes

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Thu Sep 16 09:22:36 MDT 2004

At 03:59 PM 9/16/04 +0100, Alan Kennedy wrote:
>And, of course, that's what we're really discussing here: server 
>scheduling, and how servers ensure that application output gets 
>transmitted to clients with maximum efficiency and timeliness. IMHO, 
>asynchronous server scheduling algorithms and concerns have no place in 
>core WSGI, although a well-designed optional extension to support effiency 
>might have a nice unification effect on python asynchronous server 

Right.  I'd encourage people to experiment with async extensions like my 
sleep/wake idea, and if there's sufficient consensus we could add a 
"standard extension" to the spec.  But I don't want to disturb the 
write()+iterable model, since that allows middleware to be mostly oblivious 
to the sync/async issue, and only apps or servers that care have to deal 
with it.  While asynchronous servers are fairly common, most existing 
asynchronous applications are going to be tied to a particular async server 
architecture no matter what we do in WSGI.

More information about the Twisted-web mailing list