Re: [AOLSERVER] New features in the next version of AOLServer

2005-06-27 Thread Bas Scheffers
This sounds very interesting! Few questions about the cache: Where does it store the generated pages? Just in memory, or on disk? What is used as key for the cached page, the arguments you pass the ADP? How do you clear the cache? Cheers, Bas. Jim Davidson said: Yup -- agreed, default has to

Re: [AOLSERVER] New features in the next version of AOLServer

2005-06-27 Thread Dossy Shiobara
On 2005.06.27, Bas Scheffers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This sounds very interesting! Few questions about the cache: Where does it store the generated pages? Just in memory, or on disk? In an Ns_Cache named nsadp:$servername:$itPtr, it looks like -- I'm not sure why it's in a per-interp cache,

Re: [AOLSERVER] New features in the next version of AOLServer

2005-06-27 Thread Jim Davidson
Hi, The cache is actually a bit complex to follow -- I'll add some comments to help describe. Basically: -- Each thread maintains a cache of ADP code which includes per- interp byte codes and pointers to text regions in a shared area. When all threads no longer point to the shared text, it's

Re: [AOLSERVER] New features in the next version of AOLServer

2005-06-27 Thread Bas Scheffers
Dossy Shiobara said: This really ought to be a server-wide cache sitting in servPtr-adp.cache rather than itPtr-adp.cache ... I would think so! :) The problem with that still is that it is not persistent, which could mean that if you restart your server under high load, all the cache generation

Re: [AOLSERVER] Problem building 4.0.10 on FC4

2005-06-27 Thread Jim Davidson
Odd -- I caught this error just last night and fixed. I'll checkin later today or tomorrow. I think it's a more strict warning for gcc4.0 -- the code has technically worked for years :) -jim On Jun 26, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Janine Sisk wrote: I started out with this error: conn.c: In

Re: [AOLSERVER] New features in the next version of AOLServer

2005-06-27 Thread Dossy Shiobara
On 2005.06.27, Bas Scheffers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dossy Shiobara said: This really ought to be a server-wide cache sitting in servPtr-adp.cache rather than itPtr-adp.cache ... I would think so! :) The problem with that still is that it is not persistent, which could mean that if you

Re: [AOLSERVER] Problem building 4.0.10 on FC4

2005-06-27 Thread Janine Sisk
Thanks, Jim. Does that include both problems, or just the first one? I'm still stuck on the second problem, so any hints would be greatly appreciated! janine On Jun 27, 2005, at 5:28 AM, Jim Davidson wrote: Odd -- I caught this error just last night and fixed. I'll checkin later today or

Re: [AOLSERVER] Problem building 4.0.10 on FC4

2005-06-27 Thread Jim Davidson
Ah -- sorry -- didn't read that far. As for the second error, the problem is the _np in pthread_kill_other_threads_np which means non-portable. It's an old API in LinuxThreads to kill all threads in the process-based threads which pre-date modern Linux kernels. The fix is to simply remove the

Re: [AOLSERVER] Problem building 4.0.10 on FC4

2005-06-27 Thread Dossy Shiobara
On 2005.06.27, Janine Sisk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Jim. Does that include both problems, or just the first one? I'm still stuck on the second problem, so any hints would be greatly appreciated! You're referring to this, right: I thought I had saved the day, but I ended up stuck on

Re: [AOLSERVER] Problem building 4.0.10 on FC4

2005-06-27 Thread Dossy Shiobara
On 2005.06.27, Jim Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah -- sorry -- didn't read that far. As for the second error, the problem is the _np in pthread_kill_other_threads_np which means non-portable. It's an old API in LinuxThreads to kill all threads in the process-based threads which pre-date

Re: [AOLSERVER] Problem building 4.0.10 on FC4

2005-06-27 Thread Janine Sisk
Thanks, guys - I have a successful build now. If you don't hear from me again on this then it actually works, too. :) janine On Jun 27, 2005, at 10:58 AM, Dossy Shiobara wrote: On 2005.06.27, Jim Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah -- sorry -- didn't read that far. As for the second