From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199706132033.QAA04388@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: some votes, thoughts
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:33:27 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.95.970613121611.3204B-100000@ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
 from "Alexei Kosut" at Jun 13, 97 12:17:42 pm
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Alexei Kosut wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> > > Someone should compare sfio and bstdio, it would be nice to avoid rolling
> > > our own layered i/o system.  We seem to agree on the need for layered i/o. 
> > 
> > I think sfio is more universal, esp since Perl now has some hooks
> > for it. I think sfio-Perl is still semi-experimental but at least
> > that means sfio is being worked on and is available from CPAN :)
> 
> Eh. I don't know if universal is an issue; whatever we end up picking,
> we'll have to bundle it with Apache. So whether we go for sfio, a
> less-well-known variant, or roll our own, it's all the same. We go for
> what works. As for Doug's question, yes, it's required. There's too
> many possibilities for useful things that can be done with a layered
> IO system to make it an option.
> 

By "universal" I meant simply that it was available for more
OSs than, possibly, others. Of course, a full-fledged stdio
replacement may be overkill, but I simply don't know. Although
it appears that many may be leaning towards sfio, I still liked
bstdio :/

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