httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@ai.mit.edu (Robert S. Thau)
Subject Re: Win32 Progress Report
Date Sun, 04 Aug 1996 14:37:54 GMT
  So am I with it or out in left field????

Well, let's see.  You're arguing for a major change in the way the server
is structured (people have explicitly brought up the notion of more minor
changes, and you have rejected the notion) --- a structure which has
served us well, for some time.

The motive for these changes is apparently to improve portability.
Yet, in the post to which I'm responding (and the others which I've
read), you don't offer any *specific* arguments for why the structure
you propose is really necessary to support ports which we might
actually want to do.  (Adding hooks we're never going to use is pretty
clearly a bad idea --- it can *only* cause us problems).  In fact, we
have some evidence (from Ben's preliminary work, and the earlier OS/2
port) that it is *not* necessary.  As this goes on, I see more and
more details about "the proposal", but I don't see much at all about
why any of them are actually necessary.

So yes, I think you're out in left field.

BTW, on another issue, the main work items it would take to port the
existing apache-XX code on top of a preemptive threads package are:

  1) Missing locks on storage management (currently not needed
     because of the nonpreemptive nature of rsthreads).

  2) Dealing sfio --- this is probably best dealt with by simply
     moving to another stdio replacement which provides equivalent
     functionality and *is* preemption-safe, such as the hacked
     Berkeley stdio which comes with Chris Provenzano's pthreads
     package (which is therefore an obvious first target for such a
     port).

I see no reason why a massive reorganization of the source code
would be required.

rst

Mime
View raw message