Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 46576 invoked by uid 500); 14 Sep 2001 23:08:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 46567 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2001 23:08:01 -0000 Message-ID: From: GOMEZ Henri To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: RE: [J-T-C] Apache 2.0 code review required Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:07:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N >> Hi to all, >> >> I've just commited updated code for Apache 1.3/2.0 >> >> I will need a serious code review on Apache 2.0 part >> and particulary the ws_read() which was grabbed from >> 1.3 and works (at least on Apache 2.0.24) but may >> be optimized... > >> ws_write() could need also a serious cleanup and see if the >> CHUNK_SIZE of 4k is still valid. >> >> /* Works with 4096, fails with 8192 */ >> #define CHUNK_SIZE 4096 > >Should be no need for this chunking. Just pass it all to >ap_rwrite. If that doesn't work, then we have problem on our end >that we need to fix. > >Since you have a "common" infrastructure via callbacks, I don't think >you can take advantage of a lot of the new features in Apache 2.0. Yo another Apache 2.0 gurus digging Tomcat list :) What new features in Apache 2.0 could be usefull for us in mod_jk ? The common infrastructure allow us to have it on many webservers and if one platform could be optimized, we could still make adaptations :)) I'm waiting for advices....