quetz-mod_python-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Gallacher <...@jgassociates.ca>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (MODPYTHON-202) Allow mechanism used by globalmutex locks to be specified.
Date Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:47:46 GMT
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Jim Gallacher wrote ..
>> Graham Dumpleton (JIRA) wrote:
>>>     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-202?page=comments#action_12448585
>> ] 
>>>             
>>> Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-202:
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> A configuration option can possibly be modelled off how the AcceptMutex
>> directive for Apache works. Ie:
>>>   http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mpm_common.html#acceptmutex
>>>
>>> Would just need to decide whether we do it as a PythonOption or introduce
>> a new directive instead.
>>
>> We seem to be going pretty far down the road with PythonOption and our
>> new namespace, so I'm inclined to stick with that, unless there is some
>> sort of performance implication.
> 
> An option for this would be like the number of mutex locks in that it is only
> checked at mod_python startup, thus performance is not an issue. 

I was thinking more along the lines of the configuration context - 
PythonOption can be anywhere, so you could end up with a bloated 
dictionary. This is likely to be a minor quibble though. I'm sure we can 
find other places to optimize first. I keep wondering how FieldStorage 
might behave if it was written in C. ;)


> FWIW, I
> have no problem with continuing with PythonOption for these things. Certainly
> saves all the extra coding required to add a new directive. :-)

Exactly. Less code == fewer bugs.

Jim

Mime
View raw message