I know Tcl's thread model is one interpreter per thread. That seems like a pretty good fit. Is it even relevant?
On 7/29/11 1:16 PM, "Damon Courtney" <da...@tclhome.com> wrote: >I don't recall being the one to addd that code, but I would imagine we >need to go with Apache's model here. We run inside Apache's world, for >the most part, so we should let that be the record of authority in cases >like these. > >Damon > > >On Jul 29, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Massimo Manghi wrote: > >> Hi guys >> >> I'm reviewing mod_rivet.c to understand what >> making it mpm-worker compliant is about. Currently mod_rivet >> fails miserably when running with the threaded mpm, >> still this is an issue we should try to >> deal with. >> >> It seems someone (Damon?) laid down the code >> setting up Rivet to support threads by putting the >> content generation within a pair of >> Tcl_MutexLock-Tcl_MutexUnlock calls. >> I don't see any other purpose for this and there is >> no comment explaining the need for this. I >> >> This is not enought to let it work and anyway >> Rivet should use apr_* call to better suit the Apache >> threading model. >> >> Anyone can recall why these calls made it into the code? >> >> -- Massimo >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscr...@tcl.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-h...@tcl.apache.org >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscr...@tcl.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-h...@tcl.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscr...@tcl.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-h...@tcl.apache.org
