H William Welliver III wrote:
>In short, subclass Request, implement shuffler there and add it as an
> option alongside the standard request object. There???s plenty of
> precedent for that (various backend flavors, various hilfes, etc)
> and that approach won???t cause any heartburn for anyone.
Less code does not necessarily equate to less bugs, especially since you’re
replacing well understood code with code that has not had nearly the same
amount of attention.
Just to be clear, I’m not opposed to the idea of a shuffler based server. Were
you introducing something new, I would have
Tobias S. Josefowitz @ Pike developers forum wrote:
>>It's not that the Request class is supercomplicated. The code is
>>relatively straightforward, so it should be easy to fix if anything comes
>>up.
>And only months to years later distributions would supply any user
>with the fix in a new
>It's not that the Request class is supercomplicated. The code is
>relatively straightforward, so it should be easy to fix if anything comes
>up.
And only months to years later distributions would supply any user
with the fix in a new version of Pike!
While I have not yet had time to look at
H. William Welliver III wrote:
>Making a change like that in a wholesale fashion represents a backward
> compatibility and/or possible stability issue.
That's why I'm not backporting that change to Pike 8.0.
> The shuffler isn???t a free ride (and I???m not sure that your assertions
> are always
Well, that’s a major change from long standing functionality. Making a change
like that in a wholesale fashion represents a backward compatibility and/or
possible stability issue. The shuffler isn’t a free ride (and I’m not sure that
your assertions are always true, based on my recollections
Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>H William Welliver III wrote:
>>I have code that uses the shuffler, and caudium uses it, but I would not
>> make its use mandatory as there are resource implications that probably
>> should be up to the individual user to chose to employ
>> (threading, memory, etc).
H William Welliver III wrote:
>I have code that uses the shuffler, and caudium uses it, but I would not
> make its use mandatory as there are resource implications that probably
> should be up to the individual user to chose to employ
> (threading, memory, etc).
The use in HTTP.Server.Request
I have code that uses the shuffler, and caudium uses it, but I would not make
its use mandatory as there are resource implications that probably should be up
to the individual user to chose to employ (threading, memory, etc).
Bill
> On Jun 13, 2019, at 8:24 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:38 PM Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>
> I though Roxen might be using it, but maybe I remember it wrong.
> Anyone else?
>
> I ask because I'm changing Protocols.HTTP.Server.Request to use the
> Shuffler, and I'm close to done, but it appears that in the process I have
>
I though Roxen might be using it, but maybe I remember it wrong.
Anyone else?
I ask because I'm changing Protocols.HTTP.Server.Request to use the
Shuffler, and I'm close to done, but it appears that in the process I have
had to fix some quite serious bugs in the current shuffler implementation
11 matches
Mail list logo
