httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: ThreadsPerChild - should it include the implicit signal thread?
Date Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:16:30 GMT

----- > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > hrm i'd rather the directives just not exist in mpms in which they make no
> > sense.  there's no reason to maintain backwards compat with 1.3 config
> > files... and there's probably a <IfModule> incantation you can use to
> > differentiate your multiplatform config files (if any such thing even
> > exists, i can't really imagine it myself).
>
> I feel I've lost that argument two weeks ago.  Folks want 'abstract' concepts so
> they don't have to tweak anything between firing up a pthread, pervhost, etc.
>

Ummm, no.  I don't recall anyone advocating using the 'exact' same set of config directives
across
all MPMs.  The directives are all over the fsking place right now and they need some sanity
applied.
It is just silly for one mpm to use 'child' thingis and another to use 'server' things another
to
use 'worker' thingis and another to use 'client' thingis when they are all describing the
same
thing.  And I don't recall anyone advocating not using the <IfModule> block directives
either. Maybe
I haven't been reading my mail.

Bill


Mime
View raw message