Is there any reason to not fold this into trunk and start playing
around?

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> Achieved!!
> 
> Once again: this is some super cool mojo!!!
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote:
>> 
>> On 05 Oct 2015, at 3:41 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Of course, this could also result in the issue we currently
>>> have w/ APR in which APR itself lags behind what httpd itself
>>> needs and we end up add stuff to httpd anyway...
>>> 
>>> Hmmmm...
>> 
>> This was my approach:
>> 
>> I wanted the moon on a stick.
>> 
>> What exactly constituted a moon on a stick? I wanted all of the following:
>> 
>> - I wanted to make httpd asynchronous, and decisively allow httpd to join 
>> the list of servers that can support hundreds of thousands of concurrent 
>> requests across the board, not just as a special case for specific content 
>> (files).
>> 
>> - I didn’t want to wait. This means I wanted whatever change I made to be 
>> backport-able to httpd v2.4. I don’t care to wait 5 years for httpd v2.6 to 
>> finally to appear as the default version in stable OS distros.
>> 
>> - I wanted to work with what was already there. That meant making the 
>> existing ap_filter API and the existing buckets work with backwards 
>> compatible changes to httpd and no changes to apr/apr-util.
>> 
>> - I wanted a mechanism that was not brittle. This is probably the hardest 
>> part of async programming, how do you prevent something spinning or hanging? 
>> When the new mechanism is used wrong the thread just becomes synchronous 
>> until the data is written and eventually works anyway, which is existing 
>> behaviour and not the end of the world.
>> 
>> I am aware that some people have said that it couldn’t be done in httpd’s 
>> design. I figured let me test that hypothesis by trying anyway, the worst 
>> that could happen was that they were right but the server could at least be 
>> improved as best it could. I believe however that there is a good chance the 
>> moon on a stick has been achieved.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Graham
>> —
>> 
> 

Reply via email to