Christian Theune wrote:
b) it's more convenient for developers
Why?
Early open port means: zopectl restart and reload in your browser
immediately without getting Connection refused. Dieter already
mentioned this use case
I don't really buy that, but since it's configurable, it doesn't
Andreas Jung wrote:
The usecase is pretty simple: you have a loadbalancer and remove one
backend Zope. The LB detects the removal and stops forwarding request.
When the client comes back (means Zope opens the ports early) the LB
will start forwarding to the client although it might take a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 29. August 2006 18:37:45 +0100 Chris Withers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Unlike you, I prefer when the browser waits until Zope
has come up over me having to reload manually until it
finally is
On Aug 31, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
The other reason for wanting early binding to the ports is if the
ports are in the reserved for root range ( 1024); in that case,
the
ports *must* be bound early, before dropping privileges to those of
the
effective user.
Not necessarily.
Tres Seaver wrote:
The other reason for wanting early binding to the ports is if the
ports are in the reserved for root range ( 1024); in that case, the
ports *must* be bound early, before dropping privileges to those of the
effective user.
Ah, that's true enough, but then again, anyone
Chris Withers wrote at 2006-8-31 08:15 +0100:
...
Er yes, I know why this is a very good thing. I was commenting that I
can't see why anyone would want anything else ;-)
You did not read the thread carefully: I explained why I prefer
early port binding...
--
Dieter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Langmead wrote:
On Aug 31, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
The other reason for wanting early binding to the ports is if the
ports are in the reserved for root range ( 1024); in that case, the
ports *must* be bound early, before
--On 29. August 2006 18:37:45 +0100 Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Unlike you, I prefer when the browser waits until Zope
has come up over me having to reload manually until it
finally is ready...
The branch Andreas just merged leaves the fast-bind option on
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 29. August 2006 18:50:43 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote at 2006-8-28 20:14 +0200:
On 28 Aug 2006, at 19:19, Andreas Jung wrote:
Some time ago the following patch was proposed to control the timing
for opening the socket ports
Christian Theune wrote:
b) it's more convenient for developers
Why?
c) it's a good thing if you have 'smart' load balancers
How so?
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Chris Withers wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
b) it's more convenient for developers
Why?
Early open port means: zopectl restart and reload in your browser
immediately without getting Connection refused. Dieter already
mentioned this use case
c) it's a good thing if you have 'smart'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30 Aug 2006, at 14:32, Christian Theune wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
b) it's more convenient for developers
Why?
Early open port means: zopectl restart and reload in your browser
immediately without getting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote at 2006-8-28 20:14 +0200:
On 28 Aug 2006, at 19:19, Andreas Jung wrote:
Some time ago the following patch was proposed to control the timing
for opening the socket ports upon startup:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Unlike you, I prefer when the browser waits until Zope
has come up over me having to reload manually until it
finally is ready...
The branch Andreas just merged leaves the fast-bind option on by default.
Cool, although I can't really see the use ;-)
All this does is let
Chris Withers wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Unlike you, I prefer when the browser waits until Zope
has come up over me having to reload manually until it
finally is ready...
The branch Andreas just merged leaves the fast-bind option on by
default.
Cool, although I can't really see the use
2005/11/12, Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+1 on the general goals, however I have no idea if it's easy to implement.
Does this sound reasonable to make the behaviour of opening the ports
configurable? Does anybody have an idea how hard this would be to do?
I was curious and tried it.
+1 on the general goals, however I have no idea if it's easy to implement.
Florent
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
a while ago I realized that I liked the initial opening of network ports
immediately on server start.
After working on a busy site with ZEO in the summer I wished that this
feature
17 matches
Mail list logo
