On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 17:35, Geoffrey Talvola wrote:
> FYI, I just checked in a bunch of fixes to Webware CVS, mostly to improve
> backward compatibility:
Thanks for doing these. I've been a total slacker in dealing with these
details of URLParser.
FYI, I just checked in a bunch of fixes to Webware CVS, mostly to improve
backward compatibility:
- Restored Application.forward() to its semantics from Webware 0.8, where
any response accumulated before the call to forward() is thrown away.
- Fixed a number of bugs in Application.callMethodOfSer
Fixed a recently introduced bug in PSP servlet generation which would cause
errors on Windows (not sure about Linux) when a PSP file already existed in
the cache.
Fixed PickleRPCServlet and XMLRPCServlet so that they properly handle
old-style string exceptions.
- Geoff
_
At 08:36 PM 6/5/2001 -0400, Jay Love wrote:
>Geoff Talvola wrote:
>
>>I also argued that we'd be better off storing the threads on a stack
>>instead of a queue. That way the most recently used threads get
>>reused, which may produce slightly better performance. I wonder if
>>there's a thread
Geoff Talvola wrote:
>
> I also argued that we'd be better off storing the threads on a stack
> instead of a queue. That way the most recently used threads get
> reused, which may produce slightly better performance. I wonder if
> there's a thread-safe Stack class analogous to the Queue
Tavis Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 04 June 2001 07:41, Geoff Talvola wrote:
> > I also argued that we'd be better off storing the threads
> > on a stack instead of a queue. That way the most
> > recently used threads get reused, which may produce
> > slightly better performance. I
At 12:13 PM 6/4/01 -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
>On Monday 04 June 2001 11:54, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > Tavis Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Good idea. I've never heard of a Stack class like this
> > > but it would be very easy to create a subclass of Queue
> > > that has LIFO rather than FIFO b
At 10:41 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Geoff Talvola wrote:
>At 09:36 PM 6/3/01 -0400, Jay Love wrote:
>
>>We talked about this a while back, and I thought the conclusion was to do
>>it. It's not very complex, anyway. But let's revive the debate
>
>Last time we went around on this issue, I argued that
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:00:50AM -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> > I wonder if there's a
> > thread-safe Stack class analogous to the Queue class that
> > comes with Python?
There's a Stack class in the mx package. I don't know if it's
thread safe though.
http://www.lemburg.com/files/python/eGenix
* Geoff Talvola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010604 20:02]:
> At 09:36 PM 6/3/01 -0400, Jay Love wrote:
>
> >We talked about this a while back, and I thought the conclusion was to do
> >it. It's not very complex, anyway. But let's revive the debate
>
> Last time we went around on this issue, I ar
On Monday 04 June 2001 11:54, Ian Bicking wrote:
> Tavis Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Good idea. I've never heard of a Stack class like this
> > but it would be very easy to create a subclass of Queue
> > that has LIFO rather than FIFO behaviour. Do you think
> > it would make much of a d
At 10:00 AM 6/4/01 -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
>On Monday 04 June 2001 07:41, Geoff Talvola wrote:
> > I also argued that we'd be better off storing the threads
> > on a stack instead of a queue. That way the most
> > recently used threads get reused, which may produce
> > slightly better performanc
On Monday 04 June 2001 07:41, Geoff Talvola wrote:
> I also argued that we'd be better off storing the threads
> on a stack instead of a queue. That way the most
> recently used threads get reused, which may produce
> slightly better performance. I wonder if there's a
> thread-safe Stack class a
At 09:36 PM 6/3/01 -0400, Jay Love wrote:
>We talked about this a while back, and I thought the conclusion was to do
>it. It's not very complex, anyway. But let's revive the debate
Last time we went around on this issue, I argued that you're better off
preallocating all needed threads up
We talked about this a while back, and I thought the conclusion was to
do it. It's not very complex, anyway. But let's revive the debate
Geoff Talvola wrote:
> At 07:33 PM 6/3/2001 -0400, Jay Love wrote:
>
>> I've committed an update to use a dynamic number of threads in
>> ThreadedAp
At 07:33 PM 6/3/2001 -0400, Jay Love wrote:
>I've committed an update to use a dynamic number of threads in
>ThreadedAppServer. All the plumbing is there and works well. I'm not
>thrilled with the actual algorithm which determines when to add/delete
>threads. That code is in ThreadedAppServe
I've committed an update to use a dynamic number of threads in
ThreadedAppServer. All the plumbing is there and works well. I'm not
thrilled with the actual algorithm which determines when to add/delete
threads. That code is in ThreadedAppServer.manageThreadCount. If
someone wants to work
17 matches
Mail list logo
