Re: Global question

["Will Fould" <suppressed>]

Yes.

I currently use a semaphore scheme to cache large lists within child processes that rarely change. It works quite well.  If the semaphore is set, the child knows to re-cache; children set the semaphore when they do something that would require other children to re-cache. But, I'd like to do something similar; have a separate process that can alter parent data receive signals and re-cache accordingly.  Maybe this is really bad idea?  Would existing child processes see the new data or would the only have a copy of the stale data? Of course, the problem with using a database to get the lists (besides the lists being the result of a munge), is that they are rather large.

On 5/4/07, Jonathan Vanasco <suppressed> wrote:

On May 4, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Will Fould wrote:

> Can lists and other global objects created at apache startup be
> altered as an *indirect* result of child processes (i.e. some type
> of semaphore/listener scheme?).

do you mean somehow using an external processes to modify vars in the
apache parent, and avoid the copy-on-write behavior ?



// Jonathan Vanasco

| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| SyndiClick.com
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|      FindMeOn.com - The cure for Multiple Web Personality Disorder
|      Web Identity Management and 3D Social Networking
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|      RoadSound.com - Tools For Bands, Stuff For Fans
|      Collaborative Online Management And Syndication Tools
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -