httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Hyde <bh...@gensym.com>
Subject RE: http_main.c
Date Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:17:21 GMT

> > I'm bemused by HAVE_MMAP being redefined in there for
> > WIN32 but in point of fact it never calls MMAP.  Does
> > Win32 not define USE_MMAP_FILES because: (a) it would be
> > slower, (b) the code is yet to be written, (c)
> > none of the above.
> 
> Because Dean wrote the code and he hates NT?  <g>  Well, more like
> doesn't
> use NT to test on, but...
> 
	[Ben Hyde]  Don't we all, but with 50 Million plus 95/NT
machines out there I
	suspect it best not to make fun of them.

> A lot of the HAVE_MMAP should be replaced by FOOBAR_SHARED or
> something
> which indicates that we don't care how it is accessed, only that it is
> shared somehow between connections.
> 
> Does NT have a plain mmap() call?  I thought it only had this ugly
> thing
> that MS touted as a great new feature that only NT has even though it
> does
> the same thing.
	[Ben Hyde]   If one searches for mmap and CreateFileMapping in
the net
	one finds examples of making this bridge.
> > 
> > Can somebody enumerate the dimensions of the current
> > process models in Apache.  It seems to be something
> > like this:
> >   Scoreboard
> >     - In file
> >     - In SharedMemory between processes
> >     - In SharedMemory between threads
> >   Process and thread
> >     - One process
> >     - One process as master, N process as Servers
> >     - N processes, 1 process as Server (using threads)
> >   "Service"
> >     - Stand alone run by user.
> >     - Managed by inet
> >     - Managed by Window's Services
> 
> Essentially correct I think, however you have to realize that a lot of
> the
> NT stuff isn't well thought out yet, should be abstracted more to be
> usable with Unix threads, and doesn't entirely fit in to the current
> way
> Apache is.
> 
> Originally, there was going to be no NT support until 2.0.  Then along
> came this nearly-working NT port, so people wanted "a quick 1.3 with
> basic
> NT support".  All the abstraction and making it actually make sense is
> supposedly for 2.0.
	[Ben Hyde]  I think, for whatever that's worth, this was a very
good decision and what ever bad side effects it may have are well worth
it.  Time is running out for Apache to establish a beachhead on the
majority platform.
	 - ben

Mime
View raw message