HTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@sjsadowski wrote: I’d like to get some eyes on this: https://github.com/huge-success/sanic/pull/472 and see what we can do to get this completed. I don’t think we can reasonably add it for 18.12 LTS...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@ahopkins wrote: Yeah… this should be a top priority. No sense in having a fast “modern” async framework without full http2 support. Is everything from master merged over to 18.12 yet that is going...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@sjsadowski wrote: There are a number of documentation updates that have been submitted as PRs I’d like to get in. 1348, 1349, 1350 need approval. They’re good updates, no code change, worth adding...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@vltr wrote: HTTP/2 would be huge for Sanic. But, not only should we take a look at the #472 issue you mentioned, but also for this particular issue from @tomchristie, regarding support for ASGI -...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@ahopkins wrote: Getting the conversation back on point for HTTP/2 and pipelining … What should our strategy be? I see two options: follow the path started on #472 follow the path to integrate asgi on...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@sjsadowski wrote: My vote is doing it through ASGI. I think it gets us to two goals, rather than just one: we have ASGI compatibility (and the flexibility to integrate with a north/south interface...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@pgjones wrote: I’d like to also encourage you to adopt ASGI, which I think Tom has really justified the reasons for in #1265. I’ve a vested interest in the community adopting ASGI as I’m the author...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@ahopkins wrote: @pgjones Awesome! Thanks for the heads up. I made a separate branch on my local last night to start playing with #1265 and generating some tests for it. If you have any tripping...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@sjsadowski wrote: I agree with requiring another package and the hesitancy that goes with the bloat associated, but in this case I think it’s with good reason - it takes much of the burden off of the...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@pgjones wrote: So this is how I’ve implemented the application side of ASGI in Quart. I think you’d want to focus even more than I have on performance optimization - creating tasks for example seems...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@ahopkins wrote: Thanks for sharing the code, and thanks for decoupling your server to its own package. Cleary, one of the motivations for adopting ASGI is the benefit to the community as a whole...
View ArticleClik here to view.
HTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@vltr wrote: I agree 100% percent. Sanic still is beta software, which means we should look at alternatives to make it better before saying it’s stable. If we could tackle Sanic to be ASGI compliant,...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@ahopkins wrote: Now that 18.12 is wrapped up, I’m going to start digging my teeth into this one. I will circle up with @tomchristie and see if he is still interested in pursuing this with us. Read...
View ArticleHTTP/2 Support For 19.x
@tomchristie wrote: I’m up for it yeah, tho taking a break over the Christmas period. Gimme a nudge come Jan if I’ve not already gotten back to you. Read full topic
View ArticleClik here to view.
