httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: snprintf and release schedule
Date Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:42:11 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 
> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > 
> > > Marc Slemko wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > If people agree with my last comments on the lingering close stuff, I
> > > > think those changes (ie. rip out all lingering close stuff, add a
> > > > shutdown() before close() in child_main) should also go in the next beta.

> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I think that we should change things so lingering_close is NOT used
> > > by default, but still leave the code in. There may be some OSs
> > > (SysV4-based) that would benefit).
> > > 
> > > I'm curious why shutdown would be needed though, before close...
> > > 
> > 
> > Working backwards on reading Email, I see the quote from the sockets
> > FAQ. With that in mind, I'd say that lingering_close() is unneeded
> > and should be scrapped. Also, that the close be wrapped by a shutdown
> > iff SysV4-based.
> 
> According to that FAQ you need _either_ shutdown or SO_LINGER. I suppose it
> is vaguely possible that you may need both. I'd be inclined not to scrap
> lingering_close() instantly, but to provide options to do any combinations
> of the following:
> 
> 1. USE_SO_LINGER
> 2. USE_SHUTDOWN
> 3. USE_LINGERING_CLOSE
> 
> And recommend that people test in the following order:
> 
> 1. No options (which we make the default)
> 2. USE_SO_LINGER
> 3. USE_SHUTDOWN
> 4. USE_LINGERING_CLOSE
> 5. USE_SO_LINGER and USE_SHUTDOWN
> 6. USE_SO_LINGER and USE_LINGERING_CLOSE
> 7. USE_SHUTDOWN and USE_LINGERING_CLOSE
> 8. USE_SO_LINGER and USE_SHUTDOWN and USE_LINGERING_CLOSE
> 
> Of course, USE_SHUTDOWN and USE_LINGERING_CLOSE are nearly mutually exclusive
> - I'd propose that USE_SHUTDOWN controls the final shutdown() in
> lingering_close() when it is enabled.
> 
> Then, if any of these solve the problem, we need to know which, and the
> platform.
> 

Wow... that's a lot of options. As I recall, the "old way" worked
fine for all systems other than some/all Sysv4 ones. If it
ain't broke, don't fix it. Fix the specific problem with Sysv4,
which sounds like a needed shutdown/close and leave the rest
alone.

Maybe I'm missing something though :/

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

Mime
View raw message