httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ed Korthof ...@organic.com>
Subject Re: Patch for new Timeouts
Date Tue, 21 Jan 1997 15:32:40 GMT
Not hard to do it the way you describe; but looking through the code we
have, there aren't that many hard_timeouts called, and certainly none
which would be mistaken by a string comparison.  Still, this makes sense
-- I'll submit a revised patch later today or tomorrow (also, done so that
KeepAliveTimeout can be folded in).

     -- Ed Korthof        |  Web Server Engineer --
     -- ed@organic.com    |  Organic Online, Inc --
     -- (415) 278-5676    |  Fax: (415) 284-6891 --

On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> I don't like this one, sorry.  You can only have one active alarm
> at a time, and doing a string comparison to determine which alarm
> should be set is very bad.  The only valid way to do multiple timeouts
> is to maintain an alarm table, select which alarm(s) are being set
> with a bitmask, and call alarm() with the lowest table entry which
> is greater than zero.
> 
> ......Roy
> 



Mime
View raw message