httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "RobS" <>
Subject RE: errnos and buff.c
Date Sat, 19 Dec 1998 19:59:35 GMT
> >> - Although I realize bwrite()'s interface calls for handling
> all of buf, I'd
> > like to have a "conventional" write() interface that supports
> partial writes
> > (like write_with_errors, but at the bwrite layer) so I don't
> have to wait on
> > anymore IO than is necessary.  I can certainly roll my own, but I would
> > think this would have some general appeal.  At any rate, exposing
> > ap_write(), write_with_errors(), and buff_write() would be helpful.
> Yeah, and you're going to do all the chunking yourself?  No, this won't
> happen until chunking can become a layer.

No, I just wanted to write a routine like bwrite() that can result in a
partial write of buf so I can do other things while the socket buffer
emptied (rather than be forced to block).

> > - Allowing the BUF to be sized when created would make these
> routines more
> > useful outside the core.  I can reallocate inbase and outbase,
> but this will
> > mean tossing 8K of memory unnecessarily.
> I question why this is useful.

I'd like to use BUF in a module, but I'd like to be able to control bufsiz
based on the need.

> > - buff.h suggests putting pointers to the basic I/O routines here in the
> > BUFF struct.  I think this too would make BUFF more useful
> outside the core.
> > I'd especially like to see start_chunk() and end_chunk() be a BUFF data
> > member (CHUNK_HEADER_SIZE would have to be as well).
> Anything to do with chunking is an artifact of not having i/o layering.
> We're not going to export it any more than it already is.

I look forward to 2.0 - thanks for the reference.


View raw message