httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: ThreadsPerChild - should it include the implicit signal thread?
Date Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:22:02 GMT
From: "dean gaudet" <dgaudet-list-new-httpd@arctic.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:14 PM


> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 
> > Then let us call it 'WorkersPerChild,' confound it!  Or whatever
> > name we use for 'entity capable of serving a request'!
> 
> +1000.

Make that +1001, if we are avoiding the Thread/Process labels, then ignore
the danged things.  Accept in all mpms - and emit a warning that goes something
like "WorkersPerChild has no effect in mpm_pthread".  No vi httpd.conf required.

> it's 2.0, please make the configuration directives meaningful.  i think i
> had an XXX or TODO or somesuch comment in the code somewhere suggesting
> this... i know it was on my mind in the MPM split -- each architecture
> could have whatever directives made the most sense.
> 
> -dean
> 
> p.s. isn't it a sign of the apocalypse that ken and i are in agreement?

I was just thinking something more ominous ... 2.0 must be nearing release ;-)



Mime
View raw message