From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jason at zx2c4.com (Jason A. Donenfeld)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:42:10 +0100
Subject: Policy on global variables
In-Reply-To: <20140116222022.GJ7608@serenity.lan>
References: <CAHmME9qWGtso5o+ao0FpsaVO_3ZoRbwoOK1G3Tp2aWtsD0iF2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFXTnz47EV_xFnz_7oNRZzeqaAWq6E0LcJFmmiy502TQ3KpTUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140116104751.GA26678@dcvr.yhbt.net>
 <CAHmME9qFQQaYbedFrVUdhE6ShSCJAQsMjzTbqYFTFd54pRw-Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140116130844.GF7608@serenity.lan>
 <CAHmME9oU=4JZA9AX-f5BfKd_MeMH-k5_M+0fegBkhs4eiTMWhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140116212152.GH7608@serenity.lan>
 <CAHmME9qYcCniYEU7RU0OK-ZsKge+EZpXNVvt=H93og2WjyffSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140116213424.GI7608@serenity.lan>
 <CAHmME9o1u3ev+cSnrwqRU-j9E6tPaF9-jHXKKd3e6MTZGAhtAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140116222022.GJ7608@serenity.lan>
Message-ID: <CAHmME9ojtrRbZadSLS29q2D20tzCMg2iHYjrk_9ywk5XTjrUUA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:20 PM, John Keeping <john at keeping.me.uk> wrote:
> At once (as in in parallel), or without needing to fork for every
> request?  I think that many requests serially in the same process is a
> much more likely scenario (that's what FastCGI does); in that case all
> we need to do is clean up after each request and it doesn't make much
> difference if that state is global or passed down through the functions
> that need it.

Yea, that's a good point I suppose. Parallel request capability would
still be nice, in some abstract sense, but I guess it's not clear what
the benefits would be practically. I'll merge Lukas' patch, and we'll
refactor later if necessary.