httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Missing headers for small requests?
Date Fri, 13 Jun 1997 12:42:36 GMT
Randy Terbush wrote:
> 
> > Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It's been proposed several times.  But needs a revamp of the i/o system
to
> > > > do it...  hey can we agree that we want to use sfio?  If so then someone
> > > > can get working on integrating sfio.
> > > 
> > > It's always been my plan to integrate an IO package like sfio into
> > > Apache 2.0. However, is sfio itself the best choice? While I've not
> > > heard anything specific (nor have I checked specifically), I've heard
> > > random things in passing that seem to indicate there are problems with
> > > sfio. RST used sfio in an early apache-XX, then switched over to
> > > bstdio.
> > > 
> > 
> > I think RSTs reason for the switch was the bstdio was more portable
> > than sfio, esp when one considers the configuration tool ('iff'?)
> > used to do the initial configs. Also, bstdio seemed a LOT faster.
> > I think that the sfio/bstdio/whatever debate is still up in air.
> > The consensus is that we need our our stdio routines, but not which
> > is best.
> 
> [Still digging through the backlog]
> 
> Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the fact that Perl 5.004 
> now has an sfio option would make me lean toward using that if we 
> can to reduce redundant code.
> 

Does the sfio-stuff work in Perl? The docs seem to suggest it very
experimental at this point (Perl's IO abstraction)
-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

Mime
View raw message