Greg Ward wrote:
> On 17 June 2002, holger krekel said:
> > But i wonder how i could share state between different requests. As i
> > understand it, the scgi-handler spawns new processes if the current
> > processes are busy handling previous requests. But two processes can't
> > easily share state anymore (Threads could).
>
> See doc/session-mgmt.txt .

i had. My understanding is that session managment does not allow in
any way to share state within the whole application. Just in a
user session. If the application performs expensive computations
and wants to cache results so that other users don't need to wait,
sessions don't help.

> > So how am I to share state within the application no matter how many
> > requests arrive? Modify the scgi-handler to use threads? Would that
> > be possible (any thread safety-issues involved?)
>
> Quixote is not currently thread-safe.

Could you elaborate just a bit which parts you deem to be unsafe?

> > And no, i don't like to save my state to disk so that other processes
> > (serving different requests) could load it. It's mainly about caching
> > computations or complex (nonsql-) queries.
>
> Oh.  Well, you'll have to roll your own then.  Doing this without
> writing anything to disk sounds hellish -- I wish you good luck.

i guess we have a misunderstanding here. Why would one want to persist
*cached* data? In fact for my case every bit of cached data is
extracted/computed from a 200 GB readonly reiserfs filesystem.
I don't see the point to persist these computations and go
through the hell of file-locking and/or using a persistence layer.

    holger