Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-ID: <3F0FB704.1060307@apache.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:21:40 +0200
From: Remy Maucherat <remm@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tomcat Developers List <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable
References: <3F0D91E3.2070606@sun.com> <3F0DDF63.30802@apache.org>
 <3F0EEFAD.9020702@sun.com> <009201c347e9$1dba0c30$ec66a8c0@bbarkerxp>
In-Reply-To: <009201c347e9$1dba0c30$ec66a8c0@bbarkerxp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Barker wrote:
>>How about making the output buffer size limit configurable?
>>(A value of "-1" could mean indefinite growth, if people know what they
>>are doing.)
> 
> I also dislike the proposal, but since it's configurable, and off by default
> I can limit myself to -0.  The biggest problem I see is that "if people know
> what they are doing", then they would never dream of enabling the option :).

I will vote -1 to the proposal:
- this has no actual performance benefits that I can see
- this is equivalent to a "benchmark" flag, where the server is slightly 
faster, but isn't useful for anything but throughtput testing (since the 
server would eventually just die)

Do you see such a benchmark setting in the HTTPd ? I think not.
I have nothing about people optimizing code, but the optimizations 
should have an actual usefulness (such as tag pools, which some people 
like). If the optimization makes the server unusable, then it shouldn't 
be there.

Remy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org