httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <stodd...@raleigh.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Unbuffered CGI's on NT.
Date Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:36:24 GMT
>
> > > > > Agreed!  As long as you offer two code paths, it doesn't matter.
> > > > > With adaquate warnings, we should release a stable NT 2.0, with
> > > > > the Win95/98 able to serve pages.  If async CGI doesn't work on
> > > > > the 95/98 family in 2.0, perhaps someone will offer the patch
> > > > > for 2.1 - let's get on with it :~)
> > > >
> > > > can't you just choose a different iol at run-time?
> > >
> > > That's what I did in my patch (well except we didn't have IOL's, so I
> > > created a different kind of pipe at run-time).  The problem is that 95/98
> > > don't allow what we need for non-blocking CGI's.  It is impossible AFAIK
> > > to create a non-blocking pipe in 96/98 without async, and as has been
> > > pointed out before, async I/O and the current IOL's don't play nicely
> > > together yet.
> >
> > um, what about my post yesterday saying to just have a second buffer in
> > the iol itself for async i/o?
>
> Great, but that takes time to code and test.  And, why do we care.  The
> async is only an issue on 95/98 where IMHO, we really shouldn't care about
> getting unbuffered CGI's.

I actually have the async code mostly working. Well, sort of. I put the buffer into APR
rather than the iol. Easy enough to move it.  And async i/o is not available on 95/98 so
it is as you point out not something we should care about anyway.

The discussion is mostly academic anyway. I checked in a fix that uses the non-blocking
semantics on named pipes and it seems to work okay. The only thing it is missing is
timeouts. I've coded it to either block forever or return immediately. There is no
in-between. I think we can add a couple of WaitForSingleObjects on pipe handles to
implement timeouts.

Bill


Mime
View raw message