Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dean Gaudet <dgaudet@arctic.org>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: config idea, scoping
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95dg3.970616111001.571J-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

We have various modules which define essentially the same directives but
with slightly different names.  Such as AuthDBFile and AuthDBMFile.  This
has always seemed a bit messy to me.   It also means it's somewhat hard to
avoid name-clashes.

What if we required scoping like this:

<mod auth_dbm>
    File foobar
    Group blah
</mod>

This allows module writers to standardize the config directives for things
like auth modules.  It also makes it clear which module is being configured.
But it makes the config grow in size.

And another misc idea is:

<mod bleck>
    default
</mod>

When the config parser sees the keyword default it calls create_dir_config
for the module, to reset the current per_dir_config for that module.  This
is useful in turning off features at lower levels of directory trees or
whatever.

But this is only a half solution for a general problem that we have:
Not all config directives are reversible.

Oh yeah we also need to do a systematic renaming of directives such as
MaxClients, MinSpareServers, MaxSpareServers, MaxRequestsPerChild.  We're
calling the children three different things there.  We should stick to
one name, and since "server" is already overloaded so much, and so is
"child" I'm thinking that "worker" would be an appropriate name (it also
takes into account threading).

Dean