Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-06-03 Thread Jay Love
I think an Experimental directory is a great idea. It'll save us the trouble of sending highly experimental versions of various things over email, etc. Let's do that. Jay Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > At 09:40 PM 5/31/2001 -0400, Jay Love wrote: > >> But, I can also maintain it locally just a

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-06-01 Thread Chuck Esterbrook
At 09:40 PM 5/31/2001 -0400, Jay Love wrote: >But, I can also maintain it locally just as easily, as I am the only one >with an interest in it. :) My only concern is the number of users that will attempt to use it and have issues, report problems, etc. As a Webware developer, I don't want to be

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-31 Thread Jay Love
I haven't finished reading this thread, but let me put me 2 cents in. I am ready to switch to using Threaded as the default on both platforms. The original purpose for Async was to make sure the AppServer didn't get bogged down with any slow requests. As long as we are communicating through a we

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-31 Thread Jay Love
0, 2001 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [Webware-devel] async > On the HTTPServer thread... wouldn't it be easiest to make a > HTTPServerAdapter? Or would this imply a speed hit for the socket > connection that was the point of using the embedded HTTP server in the > first place? &

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-30 Thread Ian Bicking
Tavis Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 30 May 2001 11:50, Ian Bicking wrote: > > OTOH, something like FastCGI could perhaps be implemented > > directly in the AppServer, which would probably speed it > > up considerably. > > hmmm, interesting thought. So you'd use mod_fastcgi to co

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-30 Thread Tavis Rudd
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 11:50, Ian Bicking wrote: > OTOH, something like FastCGI could perhaps be implemented > directly in the AppServer, which would probably speed it > up considerably. hmmm, interesting thought. So you'd use mod_fastcgi to connect to the AppServer? I don't think it would be

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-30 Thread Geoff Talvola
At 01:50 PM 5/30/01 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: >Geoff Talvola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, there already is an HTTPServerAdapter -- it's called Apache + > > mod_webkit :-) > > > > I think of HTTPServer as something you would use if you wanted to embed an > > HTTP server into another applicat

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-30 Thread Ian Bicking
Geoff Talvola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, there already is an HTTPServerAdapter -- it's called Apache + > mod_webkit :-) > > I think of HTTPServer as something you would use if you wanted to embed an > HTTP server into another application to provide a web-based interface to > that applic

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-30 Thread Geoff Talvola
At 12:53 AM 5/30/01 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: >On the HTTPServer thread... wouldn't it be easiest to make a >HTTPServerAdapter? Or would this imply a speed hit for the socket >connection that was the point of using the embedded HTTP server in the >first place? Yes, there already is an HTTPServer

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-29 Thread Ian Bicking
On the HTTPServer thread... wouldn't it be easiest to make a HTTPServerAdapter? Or would this imply a speed hit for the socket connection that was the point of using the embedded HTTP server in the first place? Also, eventually there *is* going to be a FTPServerAdapter... if someone else doesn't

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-29 Thread Tavis Rudd
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 09:16, Geoff Talvola wrote: > I'll bet some of the problems in AsyncThreadedHTTPServer > would be easier to fix using ThreadedAppServer as the > base instead of Async, just because it's simpler. It'll > just take somebody's time to do the rewrite. There's a very simple ver

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-29 Thread Geoff Talvola
At 12:38 PM 5/29/01 -0400, Chuck Esterbrook wrote: >At 12:16 PM 5/29/2001 -0400, Geoff Talvola wrote: >>I'll bet some of the problems in AsyncThreadedHTTPServer would be easier >>to fix using ThreadedAppServer as the base instead of Async, just because >>it's simpler. It'll just take somebody's

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-29 Thread Chuck Esterbrook
At 12:16 PM 5/29/2001 -0400, Geoff Talvola wrote: >I'll bet some of the problems in AsyncThreadedHTTPServer would be easier >to fix using ThreadedAppServer as the base instead of Async, just because >it's simpler. It'll just take somebody's time to do the rewrite. [snip] >No objection, just

Re: [Webware-devel] async

2001-05-29 Thread Geoff Talvola
At 11:26 AM 5/29/01 -0400, Chuck Esterbrook wrote: >At 08:20 AM 5/29/2001 -0700, Mike Orr wrote: >>But AsyncThreadedHTTPServer is also "experimental" and has its own >>problems. (Remember how it timed out whenever I tried to log in to a >>protected page?) So why not just give AsyncThreadedAppSer