httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Standardize AcceptMutex config
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2001 04:27:10 GMT
proc_thread doesn't tell me anything. If I google for proc_thread, I get no hits. If I
google pthread, I at least get hits that I can search through to find anything to do with
a 'lock'. pthread is easier to read than proc_thread. Yea, not great arguments for using
pthread, but at least as strong as arguments to use proc_thread.

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Bloom" <rbb@covalent.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>; "Bill Stoddard" <bill@wstoddard.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Standardize AcceptMutex config


> On Wednesday 19 September 2001 08:56 pm, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:53:47PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > Why is calling it proc_pthread silly?  We are talking about a pthread
> > > > based process lock.  Personally, I think Apache 1.3 should be changed,
> > > > especially since it hasn't been released yet.  My concern is that
> > > > calling it a pthread lock makes it sound like we are just locking
> > > > threads.
> > >
> > > Fine, change one or the other.  Having it inconsistent is *silly*.
> > > Personally, I think Apache 1.3's pthread makes more sense given the
> > > context.  -- justin
> >
> > I agree with Justin.
>
> That's fine, could you please explain why?  I am trying to understand this
> POV.  Why don't you think that calling out the proc part is important?
> I don't mind being wrong, but I do mind not knowing why I am wrong.  :-)
>
> Ryan
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>


Mime
View raw message