httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dean gaudet <dgaudet-list-new-ht...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: ThreadsPerChild - should it include the implicit signal thread?
Date Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:51:36 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).

-dean


Mime
View raw message