On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Chris Darroch <chrisd@pearsoncmg.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Beyond beta, I think we have something that is clearly better than
>>>>> the 2007 mod_fcgid 2.2 release and should get out the door soon as a
>>>>> GA (as long as testing doesn't show any regression). I just made
>>>>> what I hope are uncontroversial changes to the directive names.
>>>>> I'll try to make peace with the rest. It would be great if others
>>>>> would decide in the short term what they can't live with.
>>>>
>>>> The directive name changes look great to me -- thanks very much!
>>>> Are there any you remain concerned about?
>>>
>>> Earlier I posted suggested changes to just about everything (thread
>>> "[mod_fcgid] Cleaning up configuration directive names"). I've gotten
>>> over that ;) Here are a few from the original list that aren't so
>>> important to change but still might be considered an improvement by
>>> others:
>>>
>>> FCGIDOutputBufferSize -> FCGIDResponseBufferSize
>>>
>>> FCGIDBusyTimeout -> FCGIDRequestTimeout
>>> FCGIDBusyScanInterval -> FCGIDRequestTimeoutScanInterval (unfortunate
>>> name for unfortunate concept)
>>
>> Can I make a last-minute plea for readability? Those names suck.
>> If we just lowercase the cgid, it would be more readable.
>>
>> FcgidResponseBufferSize
>> FcgidRequestTimeout
>> FcgidRequestTimeoutScanInterval
>>
>> perl -pi -e 's/FCGID/Fcgid/g;' files...
>
> +1. I'm still working on the final solution to directives.html.xx so if someone wants
to
> commit this change in the next hour or two, it will be in the coming release.
on it
|