Hi Michael, I'm familiar with that approach, having used it many times myself. The choice of poll over select isn't important since they're basically the same; in fact, poll is sometimes implemented with select. I was originally thrown by "threads are re-used" and the reference to "worker threads" since the select/poll approach is independent of threadedness and in fact is typically used in single-threaded code. Re-using worker threads sounded more like what happens when a worker thread is finished a job and picks up the next one from a queue, and in that case ERR_remove_state() does the job perfectly just the way it is. I see what Rich is getting at though since he means select/poll, it just wasn't clear at the beginning.
Regards, Steven -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Sierchio Sent: Friday, 14 October 2005 3:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ideas on replacing where ERR_STATE is stored? Steven Reddie wrote: > Do you mean using select() to handle multiple simultaneous connections? I'm late in catching this thread, but I'll wager that Rich would use poll rather than select, or /dev/poll, or some such. The model he describes is the most efficient, but makes application programming harder - essentially trading off the ease of single-task worker threads for higher performance, but having to write a state machine. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
