httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: Moving things around
Date Sat, 06 May 2000 23:11:50 GMT
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:

> > We don't. If the user specifies disable-threads, then the prefork MPM
> > _must_ be chosen, coz its the only one that will work.
> 
> Just because prefork is currently the only non-threaded MPM does
> not mean that there will be no other one with the same
> requirements.

So, when there are more non-threaded MPM's, there will be a default and
other options.  This has nothing to do with this discussion though.  If
APR doesn't have threads, some non-threaded MPM will be chosen.

> > > It makes much more sense to me to let users choose whatever MPM
> > > they want. Then the MPM tells APR what it needs to operate, and
> > > not the other way around.
> > 
> > But then modules that use other APR features would be screwed. Which is
> > why APR must support everything available, not merely what the current
> > MPM needs.
> 
> Define "other APR features."
> 
> We are basically only talking about enabling/disabling threads in
> APR depending on what the MPM requires. Why should some other
> module care about threading issues?

Because at some point, we are going to have layered or filtered I/O, and
every single implementation we have spoken about so far has used some form
of threading to make this work for modules like mod_include.  Just because
the prefork MPM doesn't want threads doesn't mean no other module will
want threads.  We have a lot of modules right now that want to use threads
in 1.3.  The prefork MPM provides the most reliability, because if a
process goes does you only lose one connection.  This says nothing at all
about threading abilities of the server.

> > MPM is really just another module. Its needs are not tbe be-all and
> > end-all of Apache's needs.
> 
> While this is true from a programmer's perspective, the
> requirements of the MPM affect the build process drastically.
> In that way, MPMs are considered special.

No.  This is the wrong way to think about it, IMHO.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message