Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Disconnect processing thread from request/socket?

[Alex C. <al...@cl...>]

Niall Gallagher wrote:

>Look at simple.http.load.ActiveService, it does
>exactly what you want. In response to your last
>question, I think that offloading the back-end IO to a
>non-blocking system would be a win. I see no
>difference in a proxy acting as a client versus a
>non-proxy server. If you reverse the processing
>technique used by Simple I think you would have a very
>efficient proxy server. I have thought about such a
>proxy server in the past, however I have not had time
>to implement it even though I am sure you could modify
>simple.http.* to achieve it.
>  
>
Niall,

Thanks for your response.  I can see from the source code that 
ActiveService always spawns a new thread, obviously it would be better 
to make use of a thread pool, but that should be a pretty simple 
change.  It's not obvious how the IO layer knows when the service's 
response is complete; the Thread isn't visible, so you can't join() it, 
and there's no FutureResult or similar handle for polling...

OK, never mind, I just found the OutputMonitor. :)  Interesting design 
choice to have the OutputStream drive the completion.  So it looks like 
I could give the Request and Response to some other thread and have the 
Service's thread forget about them entirely--the IO layer would detect 
when the response was considered to be complete and adopt the response 
(carrying its socket in tow) at that point.

-0xe1a