Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 97387 invoked by uid 500); 13 May 2000 15:30:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 97376 invoked from network); 13 May 2000 15:30:11 -0000 Message-ID: <391D7522.C5B1B904@algroup.co.uk> Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 16:30:42 +0100 From: Ben Laurie Organization: A.L. Group plc X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-httpd@apache.org CC: jim@jaguNET.com Subject: Re: Moving things around References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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