From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199706122237.SAA24990@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: Missing headers for small requests?
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.HPP.3.95.970612140742.14802A-100000@ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> from
 "Alexei Kosut" at Jun 12, 97 02:11:24 pm
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

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.

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"