On 25 Sep 2015, at 10:33 PM, Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> While I obviously agree with the sentiment, I do feel bad for the OP > who has to fight this battle. It is important however to clarify that this isn’t a typical scenario, lest someone cites this thread as to why they should be doing the same thing. > 1. All the code we currently have in tcnative uses APR for everything, > and I'm not sure if APR supports AF_UNIX sockets, or even if it would > have to support them to do this. The as-yet-unreleased v1.6 of APR does support unix domain sockets, although the docs for it don’t appear to be very clear. > 2. The plumbing required to configure an AF_UNIX socket is > non-trivial, and it's currently all wired-around using AF_INET > sockets, so it's got hostname, port, etc. I suppose we could stuff the > inode's name into the hostname and ignore the port number or something > like that, but it's fairly hacky. Currently APR seems to accept the UDS filename where the IP address would otherwise be provided. > So this is a non-trivial amount of work, here. > > Srini, is there any chance your employer would pay someone to write > this code? Patches are always welcome, and Tomcat is otherwise > completely free… If there was a push for unix domain sockets from Tomcat it would definitely help working out whether the APR_UNIX implementation does what it needs to do, and gets properly documented and v1.6 released. Regards, Graham — --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
