http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=1050177


in reply to Re^2: [FCGI.pm] - not threads-safe?
in thread [FCGI.pm] - not threads-safe?

It's perfectly work in threads ... except segfault when thread

Tada!

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: [FCGI.pm] - not threads-safe?
by zdm (Beadle) on Aug 20, 2013 at 14:15 UTC

    It mean, that FCGI.pm MUST have properly implemented cleanup routine, that cleanup used resources in right way, and a public method to call this routine.

    My question was - is there anybody solve this problem?
[reply]
      It mean, that FCGI.pm MUST have properly implemented cleanup routine,

      Why "MUST" it? Because you said so? It DOESN'T, and there is a good reason:

      It makes no sense to use threads with FCGI

      I'm not going to explain that. YOU need to go out and read up on FastCGI and FCGI to understand why that is so.

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

        Hm, i work with FastCGI protocol and applications more than five years, and, really, don't understand, why there is no sense to use FastCGI with threads? Maybe i miss something important?

        What is the difference between threads and forked processes in this context and why use FastCGI with forks has sense but with threads - no?

        Please, explain in few words.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom