> On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > > It's easy to implement it in http11 - this is duplicated in the 33/40 > > > versions. I would prefer to use the 33 thread pool from util, but > > > I'm ok with the code used in 40 ( or I can implement both, with an > > > option ). > > > > The 4.0 pool works good, so I don't plan to fix it since it's not broken :) > > There is no problem if we use 2 Http11Protocol, one with ThreadPool the > other with 4.0 threads. Right now I'm working on the TP one.
We don't need two, so I'll try yours ;-) Do you plan to write the Http11ProtocolHandler ? > > > Also, I would like to reduce/eliminate the use of Socket and the other > > > dependencies between Coyote and the protocol impl ( it is supposed > > > to abstract it, but there are few details.. ) > > > > > > Remy, Bill - is it ok ? > > > > The HTTP/1.1 processor is written for IS and OS, and in general blocking IO. > > You can't use any message based processing with it, that's for sure. > > Will it still work after abstracting this ? > > Nothing fundamental change in how things work - it'll just move the ( > duplicated ) thread and socket code to a lower layer. That's what I understood (but it took me 10 more minutes). > If we can pick one threading model - great, if not - we'll have 2, and > each server can pick either one at runtime. > > ( and you get TP and all ssl support from 3.3 for free, useable with the > 4.0 connector ) You need to add them in j-t-c/util then. > > Also, since the current code is stable and works good, I wanted to make a > > 1.0 release of Coyote and the HTTP/1.1 processor so I have something to fall > > back on if there are some problems with merging to JK. > > > > I'd like to: > > - Release a Coyote 1.0 RC with the current code > > - Create a 1.0 branch in j-t-c based on the current code > > What about: > > - tag the code ( at the latest beta ). > - I'll just add code, with minimal changes to the existing code. > - If it works out, release another beta with Coyote supporting both > HTTP/1.1 and AJP13. If not, fall back to the branch. Yes, we can create the branch at any time based on the tag. No problem about that. I'll do that. > Are you at least ok with adding the o.a.t.u.net ( the 3.3 SSL stuff ) to > util, and leaving the ProtocolHandler in ? Yes, of course. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
