Yes. I currently use a semaphore scheme to cache large lists within child processes that rarely change. It works quite well. If the semaphore is set, the child knows to re-cache; children set the semaphore when they do something that would require other children to re-cache. But, I'd like to do something similar; have a separate process that can alter parent data receive signals and re-cache accordingly. Maybe this is really bad idea? Would existing child processes see the new data or would the only have a copy of the stale data? Of course, the problem with using a database to get the lists (besides the lists being the result of a munge), is that they are rather large.
On 5/4/07, Jonathan Vanasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 4, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Will Fould wrote: > Can lists and other global objects created at apache startup be > altered as an *indirect* result of child processes (i.e. some type > of semaphore/listener scheme?). do you mean somehow using an external processes to modify vars in the apache parent, and avoid the copy-on-write behavior ? // Jonathan Vanasco | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | SyndiClick.com | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | FindMeOn.com - The cure for Multiple Web Personality Disorder | Web Identity Management and 3D Social Networking | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | RoadSound.com - Tools For Bands, Stuff For Fans | Collaborative Online Management And Syndication Tools | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
