dustin at spy.net
Wed Feb 13 04:24:00 UTC 2008
On Feb 12, 2008, at 18:38, dormando wrote:
> If any of these are worth addressing, let me know. Otherwise it's
> going in with some minor style fixes for 1.2.5.
We should probably have a plan for this sort of thing for the binary
branch. This patch makes the tree very sad as it is.
Should we assume that every interface that binds for the text
protocol should also bind for the binary protocol? That seems pretty
straightforward, and will probably be consistent with the UDP strategy.
I've not been paying much attention to this thread, honestly. Is
there a short summary of the goal of explicit multiple interface
binding? It doesn't seem like it does much over IN_ADDR_ANY in the
general case but become a multiplier for file descriptors (once
there's a binary UDP implementation, it'd be n interfaces * m layer 3
protocols * 4).
I'm not so much questioning its value as I am curious. Right now, it
just looks like a lot of work for me. :)
More information about the memcached