W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-jigsaw@w3.org > November to December 1996

RE: AutoStarting Resource (was Request for feature: Logger.sync())

From: Anselm Baird_Smith <abaird@www43.inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:45:36 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199611150945.KAA22749@www43.inria.fr>
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).

Received on Friday, 15 November 1996 04:45:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:41:21 UTC