httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Sutton <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Date Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:31:05 GMT
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?


View raw message