On 11/19/05, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mladen Turk wrote: > > No. > > I would like that we accept in our (Tomcat) community much > > more pluralism, in a similar way the Apache httpd community > > does with mpm models. > > > > Neither blocking, APR or eventually NIO will ever be > > the best solution for a particular user needs. > > Blocking will outperform any solution for a complex > > applications. APR will outperform any other solution > > where large static file delivery is required, etc... > > > > Let's focus and actually see if the current connector > > API allows to build those various connectors. > > I think it does, so it's up to implementor to implement > > the connector. > > > > Then, we can simply have multiple connectors that will > > allow users to choose the optimal one according to the > > needs, not to what we think he might need. > > I do not wish to have any pluralism in this area, as it is not the same > as having the httpd pluralism. There's a functional need for this > pluralism (process friendly OS, thread unsafe modules, etc), and besides > we're talking about the IO API, not the thread pool. > > The question is: should we redesign the low level stuff *again* to be > more abstract, etc, to be able to have as little IO API specific code in > the connectors ? (and most likely standardize on the limited NIO feature > set) My answer to this is no, APR is the only good solution right now, > so there's no need for more abstraction layers.
HTTPD did that to support multiple mpms. Remy - the actual issue is not NIO or APR. The question is: Do you think APR implementation, and the low leve APIs ( with all the duplicate code, and the current abstractions, incliuding sendfile ) are the right ones ? < > 1. Yes, it's how things should be done < > 2. No, it can be done better My opionion is (2). Costin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
