"Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ----- > > > Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > > > > >Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > >>I appreciate that you are trying to moderate my usage of the -1 (veto), > > > >>but feel it is my duty to inform the list as soon as possible that I > > > >>wouldn't be happy with this big of a change. > > > >> > > > > > > > >Maybe a veto wasn't appropriate, but it seemed clear to me that a > > > >number of people would rather have the new code side by side with the > > > >old for a while, and Brian didn't seem disturbed about that notion at > > > >all. Hopefully nobody will actually go remove worker as soon as > > > >Brian's code is committed :) > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Unless someone wants to volunteer to put a workaround > > > in the current worker code to fix the queue-full case, I can't > > > rationalize including it in another beta or GA release. We need > > > to either fix it or remove it. > > > > > > --Brian > > > > I am in grudging agreement with Brian. I don't have a lot of time to spend on >this, but > > I'll take a look at making worker behave more like mpm_winnt, which should fix the > > problem. > > > > Bill > > Before anyone goes weird on me for that last comment, I am specifically referring to >how > mpm_winnt manages the queue between the accept and worker threads. Not planning on > changing anything else about how worker operates other than how the accept/worker >queue is > managed.
I'll be interested in exactly what you want to change. I'd be shocked if this problem can't be solved without more than tweaking the design. Graceful termination (after user intervention or maxrequests or some syscall failure) is built around the current queue handling, so it is valuable to avoid changing the current code too much, particularly if people have ideas about a better overall design which could be ready before too long. We have this recurring problem with the MPMs where somebody wants to switch out the design for some MPM function because the new design supposedly doesn't have some problem that the current design has. Just about every time new problems are introduced and not resolved and whoever did the design switch-out is disinterested or busy. Something else I "go weird on" is the idea that worker isn't good enough to go in another beta or GA release. It is in pretty decent shape right now. prefork is the default MPM anyway. Look at perchild, for crying out loud. And how many people read and work on PRs? There's stuff that doesn't work right with any MPM. Should that function be removed before another beta or GA release unless the PR is resolved? (I don't think so.) -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
