httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/modules/mpm/winnt winnt.c
Date Sat, 27 May 2000 21:07:12 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On 27 May 2000 wrowe@locus.apache.org wrote:
> > wrowe       00/05/26 23:22:56
> > 
> >   Modified:    src/main http_main.c
> >                src/include http_config.h
> >                src/modules/mpm/dexter dexter.c
> >                src/modules/mpm/mpmt_beos mpmt_beos.c
> >                src/modules/mpm/mpmt_pthread mpmt_pthread.c
> >                src/modules/mpm/prefork prefork.c
> >                src/modules/mpm/spmt_os2 spmt_os2.c
> >                src/modules/mpm/winnt winnt.c
> >   Log:
> >   
> >     Pass the process_rec to the MPM to allow rewriting of the args list.
> >     Especially necessary under Win32, or other non-unix front ends where
> >     oddball arguments might be required, but without causing a mess in
> >     http_main.c.
> 
> I dislike this.  You posted last week that you wanted to do this, and you
> received back comments asking why this was necessary.  After a thorough
> discusssion on new-httpd, it sure sounded like the patch was being
> re-written.  Now, the original change has been made.

No, this patch is quite different. Originally, OtherBill was going to pass
the process_rec to register_hooks(). That was Badness(tm).

However, I had thought that a new HOOK would be written, rather than an
entry in the module_rec (for MPMs only).

I don't understand why it is an entry rather than a hook. ESPECIALLY given
that none of the MPMs are implementing that entry.

Hmm. <stream-of-consciousness-kicks-in> ...

The module_rec entry makes sense. There is only ONE MPM every loaded.
There is no reason to use the hook system to call features of the MPM.

Given the increasing difference between module_rec for modules and
module_rec for MPMs, it probably makes a LOT of sense to simply break
these apart and use two definitions.

> I personally would
> have liked to have seen this patch before it was committed.  I am still
> not sure that I like passing the process_req around.

Why is passing it bad? The MPM needs it to process arguments. And MPMs
really must be able to do that.

> I definately do NOT like adding another function to the module table.

For MPMs, this makes a lot of sense. For modules, I agree with you.

> I am currently -0.5 for this patch, but I need to review it in much more
> detail.

Please review it, with the above items in mind.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/


Mime
View raw message