httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Robinson <d...@esi.co.uk>
Subject Re: Win32 Progress Report
Date Mon, 05 Aug 1996 08:39:13 GMT
On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Alexei Kosut wrote:
>...
> Actually, Solaris already has. It just got too complicated, so I stopped
> :) Seriously... I did try to port RST's package to use POSIX threads. I
> ran into some problems with DNS (nothing I couldn't solve with enough
> time, I don't think), and I couldn't figure out a way, really, to
> implement the concept of per-thread alarms, as rsthreads have. Of course,
> I only spent a couple hours on it. So I don't know if it counts.
> 
> But I've been told by people who seem to know what they're talking about
> that we really should use native threads where available. *shrug*
>...

Yes, I did 8-)

> Well, if the OS has thread-safe IO, presumably, we don't need to use sfio.
> Unless we want to make use of that nice stacked discipline stuff.
>...

Part of the point of buff.c was to support multithreading. In particular,
to allow stacked routines, and to avoid using signals. As Alexei points
out, signals can be a little tricky with MT libraries, which is why
buff.c should be easily modifyable to use select() timeouts before reads
and writes instead of SIGALRM.

Similarly, it allows you to register error callbacks instead of having to
rely on SIGPIPE etc.

I would strongly urge the group to look at adding the necessary features to
buff.c rather than trying to write something new, or 'fix' sfio.

 David.

Mime
View raw message