Re: [PATCH] lingering close and event

[Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>]

Hi Jeff,

On Tuesday 26 April 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> has anyone played with this before?  I've seen it mentioned, and
> joe s had a patch to create a linger thread for worker back in
> 2004
> 
> the attached patch hasn't been seriously tested (or even seriously
> coded)
> 
> if somebody has looked at it seriously, perhaps you can save me
> some time :)

I have looked at limiting the maximum connections per-process for 
event (see STATUS) and think that would be easier to implement if the 
lingering close would be done by the listener thread. Two questions:

Did you have a chance to work on this further? If yes, can you post 
the latest version?

Is your patch based on the work by joe s? I mean if I commit something 
based on your patch, should I mention him in the credit, too?

Cheers,
Stefan

Re: [PATCH] lingering close and event

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

Yeah my patch was based on worker, not event.  Not sure
what I wrote any more, but it was likely my first crack
at thread programming, so it probably needed work.



----- Original Message ----
> From: Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 3:09:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] lingering close and event
> 
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
> > Hi  Jeff,
> >
> > On Tuesday 26 April 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >>  has anyone played with this before?  I've seen it mentioned, and
> >> joe  s had a patch to create a linger thread for worker back in
> >>  2004
> >>
> >> the attached patch hasn't been seriously tested (or  even seriously
> >> coded)
> >>
> >> if somebody has looked  at it seriously, perhaps you can save me
> >> some time  :)
> >
> > I have looked at limiting the maximum connections per-process  for
> > event (see STATUS) and think that would be easier to implement if  the
> > lingering close would be done by the listener thread. Two  questions:
> >
> > Did you have a chance to work on this further? If  yes, can you post
> > the latest version?
> 
> not yet; would love  to
> 
> but even better would be to have someone else take it up  :)
> 
> >
> > Is your patch based on the work by joe s? I mean if I  commit something
> > based on your patch, should I mention him in the  credit, too?
> 
> not based on his work
> 
> I saw Joe S's patch when  looking for prior conversations on the topic;
> ISTR that it has a totally  different implementation predating event
> and its particular connection  state????
> 

Re: [PATCH] lingering close and event

[Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>]

On Monday 13 June 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > I have looked at limiting the maximum connections per-process for
> > event (see STATUS) and think that would be easier to implement if
> > the lingering close would be done by the listener thread. Two
> > questions:
> > 
> > Did you have a chance to work on this further? If yes, can you
> > post the latest version?
> 
> not yet; would love to

NP

> but even better would be to have someone else take it up :)

I hope I will have some time in the next 1-2 weeks.

Re: [PATCH] lingering close and event

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Tuesday 26 April 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> has anyone played with this before?  I've seen it mentioned, and
>> joe s had a patch to create a linger thread for worker back in
>> 2004
>>
>> the attached patch hasn't been seriously tested (or even seriously
>> coded)
>>
>> if somebody has looked at it seriously, perhaps you can save me
>> some time :)
>
> I have looked at limiting the maximum connections per-process for
> event (see STATUS) and think that would be easier to implement if the
> lingering close would be done by the listener thread. Two questions:
>
> Did you have a chance to work on this further? If yes, can you post
> the latest version?

not yet; would love to

but even better would be to have someone else take it up :)

>
> Is your patch based on the work by joe s? I mean if I commit something
> based on your patch, should I mention him in the credit, too?

not based on his work

I saw Joe S's patch when looking for prior conversations on the topic;
ISTR that it has a totally different implementation predating event
and its particular connection state????