httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Sutton <>
Subject Re: Names
Date Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:44:56 GMT
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Ben Laurie wrote:
> > Fine, but what about the documentation problem?
> It's just that, a problem :-)

How much of the problem is this with documentation? All of the functional
descriptions (how to start/stop/signal the server) are completely
different for Win32 and Unix. The the only documentation which mentions
"httpd" is descriptive. For example (from mod_log_config):

| <strong>Security:</strong> if a program is used, then it will be
| run under the user who started httpd.

We should be able to replace this with either "the server" or "Apache".
For example,

| <strong>Security:</strong> if a program is used, then it will be
| run under the user who started the server.

(Um, this of course is only valid for Unix. Actually there doesn't seem to
be many places where "httpd" is used to mean "the server executable on
both Unix and Windows"). So this may not be a problem at all.

> I, for one, would say that we should rename httpd to apache.
> We should wait for 2.0 though to do that. In the meantime, we note
> that the server is called Apache, and under UNIX the process name
> is httpd and under Win32 it's apache. Ugg.

I agree, we should not change the executable name for 1.3. We are at the
late stage of a beta cycle. People won't be expecting a major change at
this stage. Although it might seem a simple issue - just the name of a
file - what do we do about things like the "httpd.conf" file - if we no
longer use "httpd" surely this should become "apache.conf"? I don't want
to start making these changes at this stage.


View raw message