httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Hartill <>
Subject Re: patch list vote
Date Wed, 15 Mar 1995 14:16:00 GMT
>    B17: raise queue size in listen()
>    vote: -1   (there are kernel issues here, I have no argument with
> 		the patch, but I'd like to see it more portable first)
> I'm also not sure I understand the objection --- could you be a little
> more specific about which "kernel issues" are posed by:

Like I said, I have no problem with this, I just want to
raise the issue of recompiling the sunos kernel to make it
effective. I think it's a mistake to just change the 5 to a
128 then forget it. We at least need to make it obvious in
the code and/or documentation that the kernel might thump the
128 in favour of a much lower 5, along with instructions
on how to make the kernel change. Do that and I'll be happy.

>    P12: Shared-memory name server cache
>    vote: -1   (couldn't compile it on HP-UX)
> It's a compile-time option which wasn't supposed to work on HP-UX
> (and has to remain a compile-time option in any case, because there
> are systems which don't support shared memory in any useful form).
> But if you want to leave it out, I can live with that.
> (NB, it could be made to compile on HP-UX fairly easily --- just
> replace "flock (..., LOCK_SH)" with "fcntl (..., F_SETLKW, ...)" with
> appropriately initialized struct flock's as the third args).

When this is implemented, I'll remove my veto.
Also, I think the default should be to have this switched off.

As a rule I will veto non-protable code, until persuaded 

>    E15: add new CGI variables
>    vote: -1   (need to discuss consequences on CGI spec)
> It's a nonstandard extension which doesn't affect any script which
> adheres to the letter of the spec.  Do you think that's a bad idea?

Can we first talk to whoever is responsible for the CGI spec
(is anyone ?) - we might need to rename the variables and they
might have some new ones that we could add too.
The danger here is assuming things will be accepted only to
find that they are, but in a slightly different format - we
then have to support both :-(   - that mistake was made with
Netscape <CENTER> - I haven't looked, but I bet they still support
it even though it is redundant and bad HTML.

If nobody is responsible for CGI, we can just make the new
variables and post something to say "this is CGI/1.2" - who's going
to argue ?  :-)

One thing I'd like to see in cgi is a way for a cgi script to
tell/ask the server not to kill the process for any reason - so that
a script can start background tasks which won't be killed by
the server after some timeout.


View raw message