Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 49456 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2004 03:55:20 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Jun 2004 03:55:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 39559 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jun 2004 03:55:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 39475 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jun 2004 03:55:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 39437 invoked by uid 99); 24 Jun 2004 03:55:42 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [38.118.142.100] (HELO mail.infinology.com) (38.118.142.100) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with SMTP; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:55:41 -0700 Received: (qmail 27845 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2004 03:54:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.5.90?) (216.160.191.78) by mail1.infinology.com with SMTP; 24 Jun 2004 03:54:27 -0000 Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS From: Wayne Frazee Reply-To: wfrazee@wynweb.net To: dev@httpd.apache.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-VgvVJNEjN2FedO2kE2e4" Organization: WynWeb Technologies Message-Id: <1088049296.17807.12.camel@wfrazee.serveftp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:54:57 -0600 X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --=-VgvVJNEjN2FedO2kE2e4 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At what cost (in terms of security) does this gain in performance, etc come at? You also mention something about a marshalling layer. In general terms, what is this and how trustworthy/foolproof is it? --=20 -------------------- Wayne S. Frazee "Any sufficiently developed bug is indistinguishable from a feature." On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 10:03, Jean-Jacques Clar wrote: > =20 > The performance hits of isolating a process is not=20 > negligible. Process running in OS address space are also > easier to debug using our internal debugger then having the=20 > same process running in its own address space. > =20 > in two worlds: performance and usability >=20 > >>> wfrazee@wynweb.net 6/22/2004 8:34:54 PM >>> >=20 > Uh, then may I follow up with another stupid, obvious question, if > using > another address space insulates the parent application and, in some > cases, the server from a crash resulting from an unstable module, why > do > they all use the same address space on novell?=20 --=-VgvVJNEjN2FedO2kE2e4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBA2lCPh0FxxrAsosMRAoj9AKCxVCDLPg37kBzbtAC1KZk9Ok7MmwCg2gHq WLYDSqDCwIUFOWCFhwRdJwY= =MD9Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-VgvVJNEjN2FedO2kE2e4--