Paul Querna wrote: > Yes, but in a separate process it has fault isolation.. and we can > restart it when it fails, neither of which are true for modules using > the in-process API directly -- look at the reliability of QMail, or > the newer architecture of Google's Chrome, they are both great > examples of fault isolation.
As is httpd prefork :) I think the key target for the event model is for low-complexity scenarios like shipping raw files, or being a cache, or a reverse proxy. If we have three separate levels, a process, containing threads, containing an event loop, we could allow the behaviour of prefork (many processes, one thread, one-request-per-event-loop-at-a-time), or the bahaviour of worker (one or many processes, many threads, one-request-per-event-loop-at-a-time), or an event model (one or many processes, one or many threads, many-requests-per-event-loop-at-one-time) at the same time. I am not sure that splitting request handling across threads (in your example, connection close handled by event on thread A, timeout handled by event on thread B) buys us anything (apart from the complexity you described). Regards, Graham --
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
