httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Moving things around
Date Sat, 13 May 2000 15:30:42 GMT
dean gaudet wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 9 May 2000, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> > dean gaudet wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > > If I choose the prefork MPM, then APR should *not* have its threads
> > > > disabled. I might have a module that spins up a thread to do some work.
> > > > Note that some of our I/O filtering designs will spin up a thread.
> > >
> > > no.  this is wrong.
> > >
> > > if you choose prefork MPM then you are choosing an APR that does not
> > > support threads, and none of your modules can use threads.
> > >
> >
> > I think that's too restrictive to be honest. APR provides a layer,
> > which Apache uses as it wants (as I see it). Just because the user
> > decides not to use a threaded MPM shouldn't mean we need to hold/restrict
> > what APR provides to Apache, esp when one considers Apache being
> > much more than "just" a web server.
> >
> > One shouldn't have to rebuild APR when switching MPM, imo.
> 
> ok fine.  here's one of my usual requests:
> 
> give me a use case.
> 
> demonstrate to me a need for a multiprocess webserver to support threads
> (created by modules) within each process.
> 
> until someone does that we're all talking out our asses.
> 
> it's not sufficient to say "someone might want to do it".  i want to hear
> what the application is, and i want to hear reasons why it should be
> solved in such an assinine way.

Eh? What's your problem with APR providing support for everything it
can?

What is "assinine" about not leaving stuff out when you don't have to?

I want you to give me reasons why APR should leave thread support out
when the platform supports it.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

Mime
View raw message