>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
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
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
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
