- From: Anselm Baird_Smith <abaird@www43.inria.fr>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:45:36 +0100 (MET)
- To: Alexandre Rafalovitch <alex@access.com.au>
- Cc: www-jigsaw@w3.org
Alexandre Rafalovitch writes: > >Alexandre Rafalovitch writes: > > > At 9:03 PM +1000 12/11/96, Anselm Baird_Smith wrote: > > > I assume you want to use Timer entry to do checkpoint every N seconds. > > > Question is, how are you going to put Timer entry in the first place. If > > > you want to hardcode it, don't! > > > >Well, the problem with the httpd timer object, is that it's already a > >bottleneck (and as commiting changes might take long time, you really > >want a separate thread to run the code) > > > > You mean it is a bottleneck because it is used for client timeouts? Would > establishing a second timer object (system vs client timers) solve the > situation? Probably, what I meant is that the httpd.timer object is one of the very few that serialized all hits to the server: all thread handling a connection have to get through it to register the timer, etc (as is the logger for example). Having a second timer costs a thread... > BTW, there should be some security on who can put what on Timer. Maybe > making timer resource package protected (default protection) would do the > trick? > > Then the second timer would be accessable through the public function and > can have less priority as well as maybe a bit tougher securityManager > protection. A lot of work will be needed to create a suitable security manager for Jigsaw, as a rough estimate, I would say that nearly all the methods of httpd would have to go through a secuirity check (they all return sensitive data, such as the root resource, etc). Anselm.
Received on Friday, 15 November 1996 04:45:56 UTC