httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Fri, 18 May 2001 00:44:14 GMT
On Thu, 17 May 2001 wrote:

> > Right, so that basically fits in with option #2.  Option #1 has raised
> > various concerns since it was first proposed, including concern over the
> > possible expensiveness of dup() on some OS'es.  I just thought I'd
> > document all of the reasonable suggestions for completeness-sake, though
> > at this point I personally prefer one of the latter two options.
> I'm sorry, you missed my point.  Cache the apr_file_t, but just use
> apr_os_get_file and apr_os_put_file to create a new apr_file_t at the
> begining of the request.  This saves us the cost of the dup(), and makes
> us fully portable.

_OH_.  But if you're going to do that, why not cache the apr_os_file_t
(which is what I assumed you meant)?  That saves you from having to
apr_os_file_get() on every request [granted, that's a cheap operation].


   Cliff Woolley
   Charlottesville, VA

View raw message