Christian Knoke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > AFAICS it is not a good idea to use the same spool with
> > > two instances of wwwoffle accessing it. You would have to
> > > use two different spool directories for that. Read the INSTALL
> > > file to set them up. The kids proxy should access the teachers
> > > proxy of course. Within the LocalNet or DontCache section
> > > you can tell the kids proxy not to cache anything at all - so
> > > it wastes no disc space.
> >
> > Is there a particular reason for this? I ask because the WWWOFFLE
> > FAQ gives an example very similar to this and suggests using the same
> > cache for two sets of users.
>
> Q.2.5 gives the restriction "This version of WWWOFFLE is never used
> in online mode so there is never any way that the students can browse
> while online."
This is only there because that is what I set out to configure. The
description before the configuration files says:
: For example in a school it may be required that the students can access the
: cache but they cannot request new pages. The teachers must be able to access
: the same cache and to be able to use WWWOFFLE online and request pages while
: offline.
> But if both instances are "online", wouldn't you run into problems
> if both instances have write access on the same spool? What happens
> if teacher and students access the same URL - not too far away
> in a classroom?
Each request that WWWOFFLE gets it will fork a new server process.
These processes do not communicate with each other or the parent
process. This works so there is no problem with two separate parent
processes forking children processes.
--
Andrew.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew M. Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/
WWWOFFLE users page:
http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/wwwoffle/version-2.6/user.html
