httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: standard virtual hosting.. how good?
Date Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:24:35 GMT
Keeping it in for -t will screw up people with lots of vhosts as well --
-t is used by apachectl before a restart. 

You argued something like "people won't notice the run-time errors" ... 
but like... if they're not looking in their logs for run-time errors, do
we really care if they don't get a config-time error?  There are some
errors we can only report at run-time.  Tough for them.

Dean

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > Why do we bother having stuff in STATUS and "voted" on and then
> > > commited (with a note beforehand "if anyone has problems, let us know")
> > > if a week or so later people will say "you know, we should just do
> > > it differently." Isn't that what STATUS is for?
> > 
> > I realize it was a week late, and that it had already been committed, but
> > I didn't want Dean's comments to go unsupported since I agreed with them.
> > 
> > > No matter what, the stat is useful for apache -t. If we want to drop
> > > the directive and have it do the stat for -t then that's fine, but
> > > it sure would be nice if these were brought up beforehand :)
> > 
> > I think this would be the best approach, as Dean suggested.  
> > 
> 
> I think Dean just suggested removing the stat. Tony was the one who
> made the extremely valid point that keeping it for -t made sense.
> 
> -- 
> ===========================================================================
>    Jim Jagielski   |||   jim@jaguNET.com   |||   http://www.jaguNET.com/
>             "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
>             cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"
> 


Mime
View raw message