Message-Id: <199508010202.VAA02828@sierra.zyzzyva.com>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: Stuff in my sandbox... 
In-reply-to: rst's message of Mon, 31 Jul 1995 21:43:53 -0400.
         <9508010143.AA24298@volterra>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 21:01:53 -0500
From: Randy Terbush <randy@zyzzyva.com>
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

> Hmmm... you don't want to test the actual distribution before releasing it?

I think that we should run the distribution release for at least 24 hours
before announcing it.  This thing is going to create enough traffic
without having real bugs (which I am sure it does).

> On names... I *really* dislike AbsMaxServers, because (as I've said) just
> having it there invites people to set it too low, and all too many of them
> have shown that they will take up the invitation.  If you don't like
> MaxClients, how about MaxConnections?  (What I want is for the name to
> convey immediately, to someone who is too lazy to read anything else, that
> setting this number too low will screw the server --- MaxServers looks too
> much like things will run slower, but they'll still run).

I would vote +1 on MaxClients.  It would probably have the psycological
effect of getting set too high rather than too low which would probably
be safer.

I also plan to update whatever documentation we have on imagemaping
to cover the new tags at the last minute.  ie, when we release,
I'll go change it...


There is one other change that I would like to suggest. I wanted to
supply patches, but have been up to my ears.

After looking through config files this past weekend and thinking
about a config tool, it occurs to me that it would be nice to change
process_resource_config() to allow any number of files with .conf
extensions. (I personally would rather see it become 1 file that is
configured with a Tk program.) Just a thought....