On Tue, October 31, 2006 12:59 pm, Joe Orton wrote: > I very much sympathise with this argument. But it does mean that the > storage provider cannot break any of the assumptions mentioned in the > other thread: it enforces the synchronous store-to-disk and > write-to-client model. > > I think it's a reasonable desire to ship a non-default storage provider > which implements the "stop and write entire response to disk before > sending anything to the client" model. But #1 prevents that; such > tricks could only be done somehow at mod_cache level, or only by > entirely replacing the cache.
Are you referring to the existing attempt at achieving "stop and write entire reponse to disk _while_ independently sending to the client"? All the large_disk_cache needs from cache to achieve this is access to request_rec, which it does in both #1 and #2. >From there it's a simple kevent or notifier equivalent to determine whether the socket buffer is free. Ideally, this should be abstracted into a convenience function in the core, somelike like ap_write_will_block(). Regards, Graham --
