On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:41:34 -0600, Damon Courtney wrote > > > > so slave interpreters don't inherit packages loaded in their parent > > interp? Getting the answer should be easy... > > I don't even think this is possible. You're talking about creating > an interp in the parent httpd process and then somehow handing that > off to each child as a copy as it's created? I think that's a great > idea, but I don't see how to implement it. AOLServer has this idea > of cloning interpreters, but they're always working within the same > process not multiple children. And I don't even know if THEY clone > the entire interpreter, packages and all. I would think they do > though if it's a true interp clone. > > I would love to be proven wrong though. 0-] I don't have near the > kind of load you guys are using, but the idea of cloning a full > interpreter has been an idea I've wanted for a long time. Cloning > within the same process is possible. Cloning in a child? *shrug* > > D
sorry, when I answered it was late in the night and I overlapped the problem 2 and problem 3. A fork call copies data, stack and heap from the parent to the child process, so in principle an interpreter state could be copied into the new process (text pages are shared). What is missing in this picture for having a real cloning? -- Massimo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
