Marc Slemko wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:
>
> >
> > Any my threading proposal was carefully constructed to maintain the
> > current process model. Not just for legacy systems, but also because
> > folks just won't be able to use threads if they, for example, link with a
> > database library. Last I checked ndbm/db/gdbm aren't thread safe. Kind
> > of limits what you can do with a threaded apache. It'll make a hot proxy,
> > and a hot static content server. And it'll do some dynamic content,
> > presumably mod_perl eventually. But it's not going to talk well with
> > databases...
>
> Well, that's easy to fix. We just need an Apache process model
> concept where we can have a pool of processes backing up a pool of
> threads, with the idea that for some "typical" server you will only
> need a few of the backends for things which can't be done in threads
> for whatever reasons. Gee, lets invent LWPs all over.
>
> I am half serious here.
Only half serious? If you want this stuff to work, this is pretty much
what you've got to do!
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
A.L. Digital Ltd, |Apache-SSL author http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
|