httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: Pools and Threads and Errors
Date Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:02:58 GMT

On 14 Jan 1999, Ben Hyde wrote:

> I assume that we will move the pools abstraction into and low down in
> this facility.  That would resolve a number of irritating uses of
> malloc found in the os directory and free up a lot of other chaff
> that ought to have moved out of the main/ directory as general
> utilities a long while ago.


> We have discussed before (a year or more) that every thread ought
> to have it's own pool.  I assume that the pool of a thread will be
> our principle tool for cleaning up when a thread is destroyed.


> We have discussed before that the operation set of a thread can not
> include an interrupt (i.e. the analogous operation to Unix signals).
> The only way to get a thread's attention is to destroy it or hope
> that it mets up with you somehow.  I assume this implies that timeout
> will be done by destroying the threads.

There's no asynchronous anything, not even destruction.  AFAIK NT doesn't
support that... and even if it did, it's a mess.

If you look at how we currently use timeouts, we use them to get back from
network/pipe reads and writes.  That's pretty easy to implement via select
under unix (and I know it can be done under NT, I just don't know the
mechanism -- NSPR implements it).  The NSPR port adds a timeout parameter
to BUFF, and all reads or writes on that BUFF respect the timeout.


View raw message