On 16/01/2013 13:19, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 12:08 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> It is not really a bug: only the newer Windows (Vista+) have efficient
>>> polling. With previous versions, small pollsets have to be used because
>>> (apparently) it can only poll over 64 sockets
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 12:08 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > It is not really a bug: only the newer Windows (Vista+) have efficient
> > polling. With previous versions, small pollsets have to be used because
> > (apparently) it can only poll over 64 sockets at a time. If the size is
> > over 1000, the
On 01/16/2013 01:05 PM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 11:43 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
It is not really a bug: only the newer Windows (Vista+) have efficient
polling. With previous versions, small pollsets have to be used because
(apparently) it can only poll over 64 sockets at a ti
On 16/01/2013 12:05, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 11:43 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Using multiple pollsets is only needed on some platforms (Windows ...),
>>> and it is possible it is not supposed to be mandatory now (Windows
>>> should be able to handle large pollsets now). So
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 11:43 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > Using multiple pollsets is only needed on some platforms (Windows ...),
> > and it is possible it is not supposed to be mandatory now (Windows
> > should be able to handle large pollsets now). So if you accept to drop
> > support for running
On 16/01/2013 10:43, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 09:35 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> That would be really nice. What I'd need is this:
>>
>> int removeFromPollset(long socket)
>>
>> where the return value is either -ve for an error code or +ve for the
>> current flags.
>>
>> Lookin
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 09:35 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
> That would be really nice. What I'd need is this:
>
> int removeFromPollset(long socket)
>
> where the return value is either -ve for an error code or +ve for the
> current flags.
>
> Looking at the code, by the time I have finished the oth
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 07:50 +0100, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 01/15/2013 02:29 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 3. Currently, we have no record of which Poller a socket is registered
> > with. This makes 2) more expensive as we have to iterate through the
> > Pollers to find the socket. Tracking
On 16/01/2013 06:50, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 01/15/2013 02:29 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 3. Currently, we have no record of which Poller a socket is registered
>> with. This makes 2) more expensive as we have to iterate through the
>> Pollers to find the socket. Tracking the current poller
On 01/15/2013 02:29 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Hi,
3. Currently, we have no record of which Poller a socket is registered
with. This makes 2) more expensive as we have to iterate through the
Pollers to find the socket. Tracking the current poller used by a socket
would make 2) a cheaper operation.
On 15/01/2013 21:26, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 19:26 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> I had to solve each of these issues in the web container of JBoss.
>>> Although this is not going to be quite 100% compatible with Tomcat, it
>>> is very similar.
>>>
>>> I recommend looking at th
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 19:26 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >I had to solve each of these issues in the web container of JBoss.
> >Although this is not going to be quite 100% compatible with Tomcat, it
> >is very similar.
> >
> >I recommend looking at the branch that is in AS 7 trunk:
> >http://anonsvn
Remy Maucherat wrote:
>On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 13:29 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think I am going to need to refactor the APR Poller code. Before I
>get
>> to far down that road I wanted to get a sanity check from those that
>> understand the APR/native connector better than I do.
>>
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 13:29 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I am going to need to refactor the APR Poller code. Before I get
> to far down that road I wanted to get a sanity check from those that
> understand the APR/native connector better than I do.
>
> The main problem:
> - I need
14 matches
Mail list logo
