List Info

Thread: wsgiref questions




wsgiref questions
user name
2006-12-22 00:06:37

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Hm, but what would you do with a response not
> in that list that didn't have a content-length?
> You'd have to close the persistent connection.
> We're committed to keep the persistent connection
> open at all times because there's a special
> Googly thing at the other end.

Fair enough. In the case of responses that are required to have no response body, you don't have to close the connection (that's actually a higher-order rule in determining length, see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec4.html#sec4.4 point 1). But I can see the benefit to chunking over closing. Thanks for the suggestion.


Robert Brewer
System Architect
Amor Ministries
fumanchuamor.org

On 12/21/06, Robert Brewer <fumanchuamor.org&gt; wrote:
&gt;
>
&gt;
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
&gt;  > We decided to add chunking encoding to our own server,
&gt;  > it wasn't all that hard. What's the business of only
>  > doing it for certain status codes?
&gt;
>&nbsp; Less overhead if the response has no entity or a small one. In my
> experience, 200, 203 and 206 are the only ones that have large enough
&gt; response-bodies to bother. And since there's no spec for a WSGI app to tell
> a WSGI server to chunk (because chunking support isn't mandatory), it seemed
&gt; best for a generic server.
&gt;
>
>  Robert Brewer
&gt;  System Architect
Amor Ministries
; fumanchuamor.org


--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

[1]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )