httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Apa...@aol.com
Subject Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Date Fri, 05 Feb 1999 13:32:03 GMT
In a message dated 99-02-05 12:30:28 EST, you write...

> Subj:	 Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
> From: paul@awe.com (Paul Sutton)

>  On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>  > Paul Sutton wrote:
>  > > 
>  > > Do we need the "Win32" bit?  We don't use any other OS specific 
> directives
>  > > prefixes (UnixMaxSpareServers or Win32ThreadsPerChild).
>  > 
>  > Erm, actually we do.  There's "BS2000Account" in the core.  But
>  > I think that's the only one.
>  
>  I thought that was rather different - it wasn't setting a option which
>  determines a course of action in Apache on BS2000, it was actually
>  directly specifying something required by the OS. It was infact setting
>  the BS2000 Account number (hence the name of the directive). But maybe
>  that distinction is too subtle, so ok, there is one directive with a
>  operating system prefix. However I think it is pretty unlikely that that
>  directive will have meaning on any other system except perhaps something
>  closely related to the BS2000.
>  
>  > If a directive can only going to be useful on a single platform,
>  > and a complete no-op on all others, I personally have no problem
>  > with the directive name making that clear.
>  
>  I think it is ugly, makes Win32 look like a second-class port of Apache
>  (it may be, but there is no need to enforce that impression via
>  directives), and could lead to directive bloat if we decide latter than
>  any OS-named directive could actually be used on other OSes.
>  
>  Finally, if we do decide to name directives after the OS, is "Win32"
>  actually the best name to use? Not many people refer to Windows systems as
>  "Win32", and isn't there a 64 bit Windows planned/in progress?
>  
>  Paul

Why not focus on the real point... it's a 'Registry' setting.

If you are going for a generic name here then it's the concept
of a 'Registry' itself that is the common ground. It is not unique
to Win32, Win64, Win128 etc. The concept of a 'Registry' exists
on any number of OS'es and this would be more in keeping with
the Apache style of trying to keep the code 'free' from OS specific
refrences. Motorola's new FLEX OS and even 3Com's Palm Pilot OS 2.0
has a similar thing. I will bet that one of these days... as the feud
escalates... even UNIX itself will have a 'Registry'. On a certain level
it sure does beat the heck out of constantly reading FLAT-FILES
to get program settings as in the current UNIX world. With all the
hullabaloo in UNIX surrounding people 'exploiting memory leaks' and
such to hack on file permissions I'm surprised UNIX didn't adopt the
idea of a secure Registry some time ago. I know I will end up being
the Red Baron and shot out of the sky for this but I'm just trying
to introduce the idea that maybe not ALL good ideas in modern
computing MUST ( or do ) originate in the UNIX world.

Why not go 'the full Monty' here and create an Apache 'Registry_class'
of configuration variables and then you can encase them in
#ifdef OS_HAS_REGISTRY cages in the source. Much more generic
than '#ifdef WIN32

If Apache is to ever fully support Win32 then it MUST access the
Registry better and more often ( obviously ). Just because UNIX
doesn't ( currently ) have a similar thing doesn't mean any OS
has to be considered 'second class'.


Mime
View raw message