Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 42949 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2001 18:35:57 -0000 Received: from twinlark.arctic.org (204.107.140.52) by h31.sny.collab.net with SMTP; 15 Jan 2001 18:35:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 28169 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2001 18:36:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Jan 2001 18:36:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:36:01 -0800 (PST) From: dean gaudet To: David Reid cc: Greg Stein , APR Development List Subject: Re: Keeping track of socket settings... In-Reply-To: <017d01c078f2$e6d80770$011aa8c0@godzilla> Message-ID: X-comment: visit http://arctic.org/~dean/legal for information regarding copyright and disclaimer. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, David Reid wrote: > Greg, > > Nicely put and that's exactly what I had in mind but after spending 10 hours > flogging to St Pete & back my mind isn't working as well as normal! (Mind > due, does it ever??) Of course I was going to use the TCP_ flags but the > APR should do the job... That said, we don't currently allow the user to > set TCP_CORK or TCP_NOPUSH, so maybe we should think about that? Tracking > the TCP_ options might be safer and more flexible? i think there may be cases where CORK/NOPUSH could be useful at layers above APR. an example might be WebMUX and sendfile() combined. if this is even possible i haven't thought it through. MUX protocols are really desirable from a performance point of view, but a total pain in the ass to figure out all the nitty gritty details of when you write() and what you put in the write()s. last time i hurt myself thinking about this i think i came up with a clean solution using CORK, and then proceeded to curse the traditional BSD socket API because. i'll post again if i figure it out. -dean