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: Unbuffered CGI's on NT.
Date Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:01:44 GMT


On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:

> 
> > > > There has been a lot of talk this morning about async I/O to get the
> > > > unbuffered CGI's on NT.
> > > > [...]
> > > > The patch in question definately won't work for 95 and I 
> > > > don't think it
> > > > will work on 98, but those shouldn't be important to us, IMHO.
> > > 
> > > 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?

-dean


Mime
View raw message