Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Ryan Bloom <rbb@covalent.net>
Reply-To: rbb@covalent.net
Organization: Covalent Technologies
To: dev@httpd.apache.org, Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Subject: Re: New post-log-transaction hook?
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 07:52:24 -0700
References: <20010917155221.A15053@covalent.net>
 <017001c14078$0a54fe40$96c0b0d0@roweclan.net> <20010918180937.K2914@lyra.org>
In-Reply-To: <20010918180937.K2914@lyra.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <20010919145224.7EBE846DFC@koj.rkbloom.net>

On Tuesday 18 September 2001 06:09 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
> I agree with OtherBill.
>
> Cleanups are not always the answer. When they are run, many things
> associated with that pool could be torn down already because their cleanups
> have already run.
>
> If you need a known state to perform *operations* (as it sounds like Jon is
> doing), then you can't use a cleanup.
>
> Hooks are orderable, but more importantly: they run at a specified time. In
> this case, before the pool is cleaned up.
>
> Lingering close should not be part of the connection pool cleanup. It is a
> specific action that needs to occur *before* we are done with the
> connection pool. That is why Bill's suggestion of running it as a hook is
> great. It also gives people a chance to perform actions relative to that
> close and before pool cleanup occurs.

Jon is already using a pool cleanup to solve this problem.  In fact, his
initial thought was to use a pool cleanup, but he couldn't register cleanups
from within a cleanup.  Adding a new hook was a second solution from Jon,
because he just needed to solve his problem.

We are adding things just to add them.  I have yet to see a need for this new
hook.

Ryan

> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:20:35PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: "Ryan Bloom" <rbb@covalent.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:44 AM
> >
> > > On Tuesday 18 September 2001 08:17 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > > Why not let the MPM register the lingerclose with APR_HOOK_MIDDLE in
> > > > the post_connection hook?  That way, if Jon's (or any other author's)
> > > > intent is to work before the lingering close, then it can be
> > > > APR_HOOK_FIRST. Otherwise register it APR_HOOK_LAST.
> > >
> > > It shouldn't be a hook.  This should just be done with a pool cleanup. 
> > > Hooks aren't the answer to every problem in the server.  Doing
> > > something after a specific action, like the close of the connection
> > > should be done by registering a pool cleanup.  Fix the bug that you
> > > can't register a cleanup within a cleanup, and Jon's problem goes away
> > > completely, because he can use the cleanup that he is already using.
> >
> > The pool cleanup has one disadvantage (assuming the register cleanup
> > within cleanup bug is fixed), the order of cleanups is a strict LIFO.
> >
> > There _may_ be an advantage to an orderable hook.  At this point I agree,
> > fix the register cleanup in cleanup bug, let Jon experiment with that
> > solution, and then argue the merits for a new hook.
> >
> > Bill

-- 

______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom				rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------