True that in this particular case threads aren't necessary, but it
would still be nice to know if  fcgi is thread-safe for other
purposes, such as that automatic process reloader that you and I were
talking about a while back.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:11:00 +0900, Ara.T.Howard <ahoward / noaa.gov> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2004, George Moschovitis wrote:
> 
> > Somewhat related to the earlier post:
> >
> > Some time ago another ruby user tried UNSUCCESSFULLY the following code:
> >
> > FCGI.each do |fcgi|
> >  Thread.new(fcgi) { |f|
> >      f.out.print "Content-type:  text/html\r\n\r\n"
> >      f.out.print f.out.type, "<br>\n"
> >      ...
> >   }
> > end
> >
> > matz replied:
> >
> > fcgi is not thread-safe.  Unlike other IO facilities, it does not try to
> > avoid IO blocking.  I'll make fcgi thread-safe soon (or I hope someone
> > voluneer to update it).
> >
> > Is fcgi thread safe now ? Can code like this work with fcgi?
> >
> > thanks in advance,
> >
> > George Moschovitis
> 
> what will this buy you?  fastcgi is process based from apache's point of view
> - it's not going to send another request until it gets all the output from the
> first one so this approach buys you nothing.  in fact, it should slow a
> fastcgi process down since it now has the cost of creating a thread for every
> request.  also, if the load is very high for a particular fcgi program
> mod_fastcgi will start another one to manage the load (process pools).  in
> short, i think this will only complicate matters for no improvement.
> 
> regards.
> 
> -a
> --
> ===============================================================================
> | EMAIL   :: Ara [dot] T [dot] Howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
> | PHONE   :: 303.497.6469
> | A flower falls, even though we love it;
> | and a weed grows, even though we do not love it.
> |   --Dogen
> ===============================================================================
> 
>