i tend to agree with greg... this all seems to be contrary to the original MPM goals which was to provide a method of accessing the fastest and most scalable socket -> worker mapping on each platform. it looks like you're making all the world have to function like unix.
-dean On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Greg Stein wrote: > I think this is *very* wrong, and I'm even tempted to -1 the darn thing. I > think we need a bit more discussion before continuing here. > > The problem is that now an MPM must implement ap_listeners for use by > core.c. The MPM must also use a pollset. > > That is NOT right. The MPM is the thing that defines how sockets are to be > set up, listened to, and accepted. It then defines the mapping from those > sockets to backend workers. > > Think about the above code: the MPM sets up ap_listeners, and then it calls > an external function to process them, to put them into a pollset that it > created. It's like a damned little GOSUB to get some of its own work done. > The core is not adding any value here. It grabs some data from the MPM (the > ap_listeners variable) and puts it right back into an MPM structure (the > passed pollset variable). > > And the interface is just whacked anyhow. The ap_listeners is a global, but > the size of it is a passed parameter. If you want to do this right, then > ap_listeners should not be a global (we've got a serious over-reliance on > globals!), but should be a passed parameter. Yet if that is done, then > again: the hook is not adding any value. The MPM passes everything it needs; > the hook just runs a loop for the MPM. Kinda silly... > > And with this structure, how is an MPM supposed to set up different sets of > listeners for different threads? Oh... sorry, but the MPM can't define that > any more. I think with a bunch of monkey business, the MPM might be able to > define different sets for child processes. But the MPM is going to be > working *around* the issue when it should be *in charge*. > > > This change violates the very notion of an MPM being the piece of code > responsible for socket and worker handling. > > > I like the code changes for reducing the socket usage from Apache proper. > But removing it from the MPM isn't right. > > Please explain :-( > > Cheers, > -g > > -- > Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ >
