httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@ebuilt.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Add back -X functionality
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:14:33 GMT
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 08:51:47AM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> As I said when this was originally discussed, I really dislike this.  -X
> is the exact same as -DONE_PROCESS.  We now have two ways to get into the
> same state.  Yuck!  We made a conscious decision to go with -DONE_PROCESS,
> the original goal being to move towards environment variables instead of
> command line arguments.  The !! was there by the way, because it solved a
> lot of bugs on many platforms.

No, I don't see -X as the same as -DONE_PROCESS.  -X says, "Whatever 
you have to do across the entire system to achieve a debug state, do 
it."  -DONE_PROCESS says, "Tell your MPM to only have one process."  
Very different things.  I think ONE_PROCESS has too narrow of a scope.  
Yes, they *might* achieve the same result, but that isn't a big deal 
(IMHO).  What if a module wants to achieve some type of internal
debugging check or special behavior at run-time (plausible?), it can 
check for the existance of the DEBUG directive?  Checking ONE_PROCESS 
in a module doesn't make any semantic sense.

And another point is -X is in most of the printed documentation.  And,
to most casual users, ONE_PROCESS wouldn't imply "debug" mode (which is
how this thread got started).  It needs to be obvious.  -X is the 
precedent that has been set before.  And, they can use -DDEBUG as well.
That seems reasonably sane to me.

About the !!.  The value returned from ap_exists_config_define() 
is either 0 or 1.  And, it is an integer (no bools in C).  All we are 
doing with the values are the standard "is this non-zero" check in
C (if (foo) {...).  C++ would do the !! to convert an int to a bool.  
If we are getting type errors checking for an integer being non-zero, 
we have lots of problems in our code (not to mention our C compilers).

> In all, I am -0.9 for this patch, I won't veto it, but I don't want to see
> it in the code.  If we do put the -X back in, then remove -DONE_PROCESS.
> Having both is just bogus.

I don't have a binding vote on this matter.  I'll let people with
binding votes discuss this.  I personally can see the need for having
BOTH ONE_PROCESS and DEBUG.  They just mean different things.  But, if I
had to choose, DEBUG would win out as it is more versatile.  -- justin


Mime
View raw message