Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60411 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2005 16:43:58 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Nov 2005 16:43:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 23786 invoked by uid 500); 19 Nov 2005 16:43:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 23750 invoked by uid 500); 19 Nov 2005 16:43:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 23739 invoked by uid 99); 19 Nov 2005 16:43:53 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:43:53 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of costin@gmail.com designates 64.233.162.198 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.162.198] (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.198) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:45:26 -0800 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m22so407052nzf for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:43:32 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nGEICfv45BwJ7rdtm5C8cUojhoYh59GMDw+h8/OnpvSxROcIgaEcFeq5K7iW5eHLT76GTXBgVUSMiybnp2QHBhS1jO74XCK8Aye6AxDfozlG9l/qZ+qcq+S0TQyVSVLJlhnHN84KgeGhnqxfqvrtGPu+cOybkk113/duvhIFOrc= Received: by 10.65.186.13 with SMTP id n13mr1064469qbp; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:43:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.15.5 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:43:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <96e4b5230511190843k7dd321dcu66b98e9285ac10c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:43:32 -0800 From: Costin Manolache Reply-To: costin@apache.org To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] APR or NIO ? In-Reply-To: <96e4b5230511190835t74bb43f9h2807141d33319d23@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <6c0aa9500511180700q67d9081jb958d074c7748e6d@mail.gmail.com> <96e4b5230511181625p4fe6ab68kc1b27f216ceb184b@mail.gmail.com> <437E8332.90602@apache.org> <96e4b5230511182036t44622182w14c3a44ccf4d346e@mail.gmail.com> <437EFD8F.6010401@apache.org> <437F0F01.1020407@apache.org> <437F2692.5090908@ptc.com> <437F2FDB.4030102@apache.org> <437F4561.1080406@apache.org> <96e4b5230511190835t74bb43f9h2807141d33319d23@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > The question is: > > Do you think APR implementation, and the low leve APIs ( with all the > duplicate code, and the current abstractions, incliuding sendfile ) > are the right ones ? To clarify - this is not only about APR, but also *Endpoint, TcpConnectoin/TcpConectionHandler, util.buf, util.thread, coyote.httpd. All were designed without considering 'mpm's correctly, and I think that forced the current APR impl. Costin > > < > 1. Yes, it's how things should be done > < > 2. No, it can be done better > > My opionion is (2). > > Costin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org