Yeah my patch was based on worker, not event. Not sure what I wrote any more, but it was likely my first crack at thread programming, so it probably needed work.
----- Original Message ---- > From: Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> > To: dev@httpd.apache.org > Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 3:09:25 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] lingering close and event > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Stefan Fritsch <s...@sfritsch.de> wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > > > On Tuesday 26 April 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >> has anyone played with this before? I've seen it mentioned, and > >> joe s had a patch to create a linger thread for worker back in > >> 2004 > >> > >> the attached patch hasn't been seriously tested (or even seriously > >> coded) > >> > >> if somebody has looked at it seriously, perhaps you can save me > >> some time :) > > > > I have looked at limiting the maximum connections per-process for > > event (see STATUS) and think that would be easier to implement if the > > lingering close would be done by the listener thread. Two questions: > > > > Did you have a chance to work on this further? If yes, can you post > > the latest version? > > not yet; would love to > > but even better would be to have someone else take it up :) > > > > > Is your patch based on the work by joe s? I mean if I commit something > > based on your patch, should I mention him in the credit, too? > > not based on his work > > I saw Joe S's patch when looking for prior conversations on the topic; > ISTR that it has a totally different implementation predating event > and its particular connection state???? >
