Message-ID: <01BD0C6D.2C2012F0.dda@individual.com>
From: "David D'Antonio" <dda@individual.com>
To: "'new-httpd@apache.org'" <new-httpd@apache.org>
Subject: RE: confused child
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:59:25 -0500
Organization: Individual, Inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

On Friday, December 19, 1997 9:33 AM, Paul Sutton [SMTP:paul@eu.c2.net] 
wrote:
[snip]

> Yeah, ok. I missed this name in the document -- its only mentioned in
> the
> "how do we initialise all of this" section. But I'm happy with it
> instead
> of parent. It is more obvious in the current NT and Unix cases. However
> I
> was trying to abstract away from all mentions of process/threads/fibers
> in
> my naming, just in case we ever get a situation where we (say) want to
> implement the "main process" functionality in a thread, rather than a
> process (I expect most NT servers actually work like this).

I believe the "default" case under NT is for Services to run as a thread 
under
the Service Control Manager's process. You can set up the service to be 
its
own process if you want, but its a bit more overhead then the SCM just 
spinning
another thread to handle your service.

> Yeah, fibers is fine, but has a specific meaning (in Win32 anyway),
> whereas I was trying to be abstract here. In particular, in the case of
> current Unix (and the MSS model in general), the "worker" is identical
> to
> the "child".

Of course, MS states that there is no benefit to using fibers in your 
code,
rather than threads. They were just put in "to help people port programs
that do their own scheduling" (in other words to help folks port Win16
programs that do their own cooperative multi-tasking to Win32).

> //pcs

DDA

--
David D'Antonio CNE - dda@SpamBeGone.individual.com
 Some they do and some they don't and some ya just can't tell
  Some they will and some they won't and some it's just as well
						-SuperTramp