httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgaudet-list-new-ht...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: layered I/O (was: cvs commit: ...)
Date Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:11:56 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > I don't believe that the content-generators need to be changed AT ALL.
> > > They would continue to call ap_rput*() as they do now.
> > 
> > then you haven't thought on it hard enough.
> 
> That is why I posted. I'd thought enough about it to know that the initial
> design wasn't as good as it could be, but I didn't have the full story
> either.
> 
> >... pseudo-code ...
> > that's a massive change to the content-processor!
> > 
> > you've just made it so that the content-processor *can't use the stack to
> > store any context*.  all the context has to be moved to a structure which
> > is used by each call to the process_data function.
> > 
> > go take a look at mod_include, and tell me you can do this with no change.  
> > if so then i'll be really impressed.
> 
> Dude. Read my statement closer, rather than being confrontational.
> 
> I said: no changes to the content-GENERATORS.

i've already posted an example that makes this false:  mod_cgi.

> Bite me. You're being totally confrontational here, and it isn't called
> for. You didn't read my statements. I said no change to generators, and
> definite changes to processors.

no it is called for.

this item has been on the bullet list for as long as apache-2.0 has been a
wet dream.

there's been a fuckload of hand waving over the years, and *no code*.  
code speaks reams more in my book than anything else.

so far all i'm seeing is more hand waving, and cries that this isn't the
wet dream folks thought it would be.

welcome to reality.  if you folks would stop waving your hands and
actually try to code it up you'd probably understand our proposed
solution.

> Ryan's initial design had a similar requirement on the processors, but
> also had changes to make against the generators.

then ryan's design wasn't the design we drew on the whiteboard on
thursday, and i apologize.  there is obviously no requirement that
processors (i.e. filters) run in a separate thread.

Dean


Mime
View raw message