On 20/05/2012 21:47, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 05/20/2012 08:37 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Therefore, I intend modifying the APR/native code to support per socket
time outs. I would be grateful if those of you with more C knowledge
than I (which is most people on this list) could:
a) tell me now if
My understanding is that the timeout is implemented in poll.c maintain() -
by scanning the socket list in C.
Why not doing the same thing in java - i.e. don't touch native code, have
all sockets 'long', and close whenever you need from java ?
Costin
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Mark Thomas
On 05/21/2012 02:55 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 20/05/2012 21:47, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 05/20/2012 08:37 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Therefore, I intend modifying the APR/native code to support per socket
time outs. I would be grateful if those of you with more C knowledge
than I (which is most
On 21/05/2012 15:26, Costin Manolache wrote:
My understanding is that the timeout is implemented in poll.c maintain() -
by scanning the socket list in C.
Why not doing the same thing in java - i.e. don't touch native code, have
all sockets 'long', and close whenever you need from java ?
The
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 21/05/2012 15:26, Costin Manolache wrote:
My understanding is that the timeout is implemented in poll.c maintain()
-
by scanning the socket list in C.
Why not doing the same thing in java - i.e. don't touch native
On 21/05/2012 18:30, Costin Manolache wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 21/05/2012 15:26, Costin Manolache wrote:
My understanding is that the timeout is implemented in poll.c maintain()
-
by scanning the socket list in C.
Why not doing the
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 21/05/2012 18:30, Costin Manolache wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 21/05/2012 15:26, Costin Manolache wrote:
My understanding is that the timeout is implemented in
On 05/21/2012 08:01 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Mark Thomasma...@apache.org wrote:
My point was that you don't need to change anything in native.
Leave APR as it is - just use '0' as timeout for the websocket sockets ( or
any scoket that needs arbitrary
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 05/21/2012 08:01 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Mark Thomasma...@apache.org wrote:
My point was that you don't need to change anything in native.
Leave APR as it is - just use '0' as
Currently, time outs for APR/native sockets are managed at the Pollset
level. This means all sockets in a single Pollset must have the same
time out. This is starting to become a nuisance.
I have already had to add a second Pollset to AprEndpoint to handle
separate connection and keep-alive time
Did there is a need to have sockets with differents timeout in day to day case ?
For example did it is required by specs or API ?
The finer, the better but only if there is a real need :-)
Btw, i'll take a look to your commits.
Le 20 mai 2012 à 20:37, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org a écrit :
And what about using pollsets with specific timeout and associate sockets to
pollset according to their timeout needs ?
Just an idea.
Le 20 mai 2012 à 20:37, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org a écrit :
Currently, time outs for APR/native sockets are managed at the Pollset
level. This means all
On 20/05/2012 19:44, Henri Gomez wrote:
Did there is a need to have sockets with differents timeout in day to day
case ?
So far, no. The requirements could be met by three pollsets. One for new
connections, one for keep-alive connections and one for WebSocket
connections.
My concern is that
On 20/05/2012 19:46, Henri Gomez wrote:
And what about using pollsets with specific timeout and associate sockets to
pollset according to their timeout needs ?
That is what we do currently. I'm not convinced that is a scalable long
term solution as the number of things that need different time
That is what we do currently. I'm not convinced that is a scalable long
term solution as the number of things that need different time outs
increases.
Main question is :
What will be the faster to handle ?
A table of pollsets and associate sockets to them (ie: 30s, 60s, 120s,
infinite) or
On 05/20/2012 08:37 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Therefore, I intend modifying the APR/native code to support per socket
time outs. I would be grateful if those of you with more C knowledge
than I (which is most people on this list) could:
a) tell me now if this is a crazy idea (and why)
b) keep an
16 matches
Mail list logo
