httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Win32 Progress Report
Date Sat, 03 Aug 1996 21:46:42 GMT
Christian Gross wrote:
> 
> ----------
> > From: Ben Laurie <ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
> > To: Apache Mailing List <new-httpd@hyperreal.com>
> > Subject: Win32 Progress Report
> > Date: samedi, 3. ao{t 1996 23:02
> > 
> > There's also the question of how sfio fits into all this. I'm trying to
> avoid
> > thinking about that right now ;-) If anyone feels brave they can look
> into it
> > for me...
> > 
> > Speak now or forever...
> > 
> Ok come on, we all see to be doing a nice square dance about this issue. 
> As in an earlier message where it was stated why not start using the RST
> version as a basis for a HAL based Apache.  The hacked Apache that I am
> currently running is truly pre-emptive.  This version is being stress
> tested with about approx 1800 hits per hour. (If you want to see the
> server that is being stressed it is located at pluto.eusoft.com).  The
> reason for this low number is because there are server programs that are
> being called.  My client will be using this product for several Web Client
> Server projects with 100->1000 concurrent users.
> 
> My proposal was as follows and please comment. (The basis code is the RST
> version as it has already been developed with threads in mind)
> 
> Okay here is a suggestion instead of ifdefs we do the following.  The core
> calls are something like HTTP_xxxx.c and then modules are mod_xxxx.c.
> 
> We split HTTP_xxxx.c to something like 
> HAL_NT_xxx.c and then HAL_SOL_xxx.c and for the higher would be
> HTTP_xxxx.c and higher yet would be mod_xxx.c
> 
> There would be no ifdefs within the HTTP_xxx and mod_xxx.  THere may be
> some within the HAL_os_xxxx.c because there could be HAL_bsd_xxx.c  or
> HAL_NT_xxxx.c could also be for Windows 95.  This way all code would be
> still available and if one was to work on a platform they would not need
> to look at all of the code that is not required.  As well I think that
> with an approach like this we can take advantage of all nice aspects of
> the OS.  For example in your threaded Apache you wrote a threaded library,
> which is required on platforms like Linux, but not needed on platforms
> like NT or Solaris.  Here is a suggestion, since your threads are an
> abstraction maybe we could move this layer to the HAL and it would be part
> of the specification.  So native threads would be adapted to this library
> of calls.  As well could we make all calls to the HAL using something like
> HAL_xxxx etc.  
> 
> So am I with it or out in left field????
> 

I think this is essentially what I am proposing, except that I'm not planning
to go quite as far as no ifdefs. I agree that we could usefully go further
down that path with Apache as a whole but I'm not immediately planning to
drive that process.

Certainly there will be no Win32 specific parts when it comes to threading if
it is got right.

BTW, I object to the HAL terminology - we aren't doing hardware abstraction
here.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie                  Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435
Freelance Consultant and    Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director          Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
A.L. Digital Ltd,           URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk
London, England.            Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)

Mime
View raw message