httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>
Subject RE: [patch 1.3.13-dev] Win9x Services
Date Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:51:28 GMT
> From: Keith Wannamaker [mailto:krw@raleigh.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 7:08 AM
> 
> Hi Bill, here are a few comments.
> 
> If you are going to show friendly messages for -i/-u problems,
> do it in the 'if (install)' block.  For instance your code
> doesn't show a friendly message for two successive "apache -i"'s
> or "apache -u"'s.

True... I will simply set service_name = DEFAULT_SERVICE_NAME
if (install && !service_name) immediately after parsing the header.
 
> As a corollary, if you put the install friendly messages in the
> install block, there is no need to move this from the 'n' case:
> -            if (isValidService(optarg)) {
> -                ap_registry_get_service_conf(pconf, 
> ap_server_confname...
> -                conf_specified = 1;
> -            }

I will look at it.  But this is sorta silly, since we also want to
tell the user their requested service to -k stop isn't installed,
the service to -k start isn't installed, etc (same message everywhere),
except install itself (whoops... service is already installed.)  I
believe the fix I just cited above solves the issues.

> Finally why have a separate -k option for Win95?  If you already can 
> test for that platform, why not make it (testing for Win95 and
> acting appropriately) a special case to all of the service signals?

to run the service?  Actually, both platforms have that signal in 2.0a5,
since third party iconapps, et al, can launch Apache without a console,
the CreateConsole test won't hold up in any/every scenario.

9x services aren't really, they are just a command stored in the registry.
The option allows our installed service to be explict.

The newer 2.x patch is a bit more (and in overly) unified.  In fact 
I need to roll back in SCM code since the service is ignoring Apache's 
own signals.  But in 2.x I was trying to simplify and layer on the 
complexity we absolutely require.

Patch to fix these issues will be online first thing a.m. Friday, and
I hope they address your concerns :-)

One extra question, do you think it would be a bastardization for 2.0
to use the pause function to initiate a restart?  (i.e. Pause pauses
and auto continues.)  I'm thinking it's a stretch, but I figured I'd ask.

Bill

Mime
View raw message