Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: <rbb@covalent.net>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Cc: <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Accept mutex
In-Reply-To: <p05100304b758f5c2b80c@[209.133.211.10]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106220647320.5835-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> I've been toying with the idea of making the accept mutex selection
> a runtime rather than compile-time option. This makes sense to me
> for certain applications. At present, however, APR decides the mutex
> type and Apache uses that. So we either need some way for APR to
> determine all possible available options, and then "enable" them
> (provide the required calls) and then have an Apache directive do the
> required right-thing to pick the one you want.
>
> One way would be to add another argument to the APR call that defines
> the lock type (enum would be best, 'natch). Whatcha think?

Could be cool.  But a quick question, what do you expect to gain with
this?  Is it for experimentation, or do you believe that having multiple
mutex types will be useful in the same production server?  Would this mean
that the Apache code would need to try multiple kinds of locks before it
necessarily found one that worked?

I guess my only thought is that APR chooses the "best" lock for the
platform based on the groups experience, and what is available.  Would
this change then put the onus of defining which lock type is used back on
the programmer?

Ryan

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