* Brian Pane wrote: > And although I like the performance benefits of the pool memory > allocators, I remember how tricky it was to debug some of the > pool and bucket lifetime problems that we encountered during > the development of 2.0 (especially in filters). All things considered, > I don't think I'd mind the overhead of a garbage collection thread.
The pool problems should be solved now... (mostly) > Thus I can't help but wonder: Would 3.0 be a good time to consider > trying a Java-based httpd? If you ask me: Nope. Try Tomcat instead ;) What we need for 3.0 is just a clean design and definitions of what is core (not much, imo) and what is not core. This was started for 2.0 but never finished. Further a standardized exception handling would be nice (like svn's). The "core" could provide several convenience data types like ap_string_t. I would, btw, just store the length of the string in such a type. Other properties (url-encoding state, ...) imo belong to a different layer. Like a bucket or just a wrapper type. nd -- "Das Verhalten von Gates hatte mir bewiesen, dass ich auf ihn und seine beiden Gefährten nicht zu zählen brauchte" -- Karl May, "Winnetou III" Im Westen was neues: <http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2>
