Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.7.6/V2.0) id LAA02544; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:47:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from blacklodge.c2.net by taz.hyperreal.com (8.7.6/V2.0) with ESMTP id LAA02533; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:47:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from clotho.c2.org (clotho.c2.org [140.174.185.10]) by blacklodge.c2.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA05009 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:47:42 -0800 (PST) From: sameer Received: (from sameer@localhost) by clotho.c2.org (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA00911 for new-httpd@hyperreal.com; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:46:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199610311946.LAA00911@clotho.c2.org> Subject: giving CGI the power to flush a socket To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:46:59 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Its been discussed here that nph sucks but people want to use nph so the cgi can decide when to flush the socket. One idea I had was to have the CGI send a SIGUSR2 or something to the parent process, when the flush was desired, so that the parent process would have a signal handler that would flush at this point. What do people think? Is this an evil idea? -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 C2Net FAX: 510-986-8777 The Internet Privacy Provider http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net