> ----- > > Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > > >Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >>I appreciate that you are trying to moderate my usage of the -1 (veto), > > >>but feel it is my duty to inform the list as soon as possible that I > > >>wouldn't be happy with this big of a change. > > >> > > > > > >Maybe a veto wasn't appropriate, but it seemed clear to me that a > > >number of people would rather have the new code side by side with the > > >old for a while, and Brian didn't seem disturbed about that notion at > > >all. Hopefully nobody will actually go remove worker as soon as > > >Brian's code is committed :) > > > > > > > I disagree. Unless someone wants to volunteer to put a workaround > > in the current worker code to fix the queue-full case, I can't > > rationalize including it in another beta or GA release. We need > > to either fix it or remove it. > > > > --Brian > > I am in grudging agreement with Brian. I don't have a lot of time to spend on this, >but > I'll take a look at making worker behave more like mpm_winnt, which should fix the > problem. > > Bill
Before anyone goes weird on me for that last comment, I am specifically referring to how mpm_winnt manages the queue between the accept and worker threads. Not planning on changing anything else about how worker operates other than how the accept/worker queue is managed. Bill
