httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From mi...@debella.aszi.sztaki.hu (Molnar Ingo)
Subject Re: code chunks for filter challenge
Date Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:54:47 GMT

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:

> I've been focusing on the char * filters since the beginning. [...]

no, you have not. Please re-read your 'my conditions for removing my veto'
email:

  Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006281346100.24288-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>

most items you listed deal with zero-copy, not 'char *' filters. Greg's
sample filter solves all the issues you listed. Now that Greg has shown
that zero-copy can done with his scheme just fine, you came up with
another (unrelated) list of requirements, and that is not fair. It really
makes it appear as if your real requirement was: 'it must be my
all-buckets approach', regardless of the facts.

'char *' filters in Greg's scheme are clearly a secondary option for
quick prototype filters, conceptually slow filters or conceptually
non-zero-copy filters. You dont have to use 'char *' filters. An
all-buckets filter chain will zero-copy, period.

If a filter in the chain is non-zero-copy, then there will be one more
copy, so what? If it's eg. a compression filter then there can be no
zero-copy *mathematically*, because the transformation done in the
filter is nonlinear. It's a business of that filter, and if it could
conceptually be zero-copy then someone will rewrite it to be bucket
based. Q.E.D.

	Ingo

ps. as a sidenote, i believe it's unethical to veto a patch when the
vetoer has a 'competing' patch for the same problem as well. The
'competitor' is of course free to point out suspected design flaws,
but should not use her voting power in a negative way in that matter.


Mime
View raw message