httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: open_logs vs post_config
Date Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:26:18 GMT
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com> wrote:

>
> On 7 Apr 2009, at 00:14, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>  Nick Kew wrote:
>>
>>> As a matter of curiosity, why do we have two separate hooks with
>>> identical signatures running consecutively?  AFAIK it's not historic -
>>> it goes right back to 2.0-early-dev in 1999.
>>>
>>> The MPMs use open_log to open listeners - an entirely different task,
>>> and they even comment about "should be a post_config ... but need
>>> to come earlier".  Wouldn't it make sense in this instance just to
>>> migrate everything to post_config?
>>>
>>
>> open_logs were expected to open the log files, thereby removing whatever
>> interesting stuff would be logged to console/dmesg off to a error.log.
>>
>> Now folks noticed that listener failure wasn't logged (whoops) so it was
>> then moved to open listeners before the log files.
>>
>> IOW attempting to please everyone?
>>
>
> ... whereas, if we had only the one hook (let's call it post_config), it
> would
> be straightforward to run open_logs with a simple APR_HOOK_FIRST ...
>
> BTW, what took me there today was the error message I get from
> starting a newbuild trunk with no MPM loaded.  A WTF moment!


Was that message something other than the report of an unrecognized MPM
directive?


>
> Some more work to do there, methinks.


Once hooks have been registered, "" from ap_show_mpm() means that no MPM is
included.

Also, DECLINED from ap_run_mpm() means that no mpm is included.  (That's
after the config has been parsed.  You can get this far if you use defaults
for all MPM directives.)

Depending on what you want to circumvent, one check or the other should
suffice.

Mime
View raw message