Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4B0C2CD8.7060402@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:58:32 -0600
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r883712 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/core.xml
References: <20091124145404.061F823888DC@eris.apache.org>
	 <cc67648e0911240659n1cd890bcr7a1d6742f61ca7e9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4B0C0F84.20800@rowe-clan.net>
 <cc67648e0911240929u22a3047cle126cfc47dcb35b4@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cc67648e0911240929u22a3047cle126cfc47dcb35b4@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jeff Trawick wrote:
> 
> What about an optional third argument to Mutex to indicate that the
> pid should be omitted?
> 
> Mutex default sysvsem
> Mutex ssl-cache file:/mnt/sesscachedir OmitPid
> etc.

That seems sensible, but I'm left wondering how many different naming
conventions we can fit on one directive line.  Perhaps bOmitPID instead ;-)
This really becomes harder to follow than the existing multiple-syntaxes.

Is there any reason not to name these mutexes in MixedCase?

Is there any reason we can't invert the arg order, so that we have

Mutex mutextype:name Resource [Resource ...] [OmitPid]

Of course, default could be assumed here.  So the above becomes

Mutex SysVSem
Mutex file:/mnt/sesscachedir SSLSessionCache OmitPid

(note the Resource tag can be the actual directive being mutexed, instead
of an alt-name).

Thoughts?

> In the ssl-cache example, the name of the mutex will be simply
> /mnt/sesscachedir/ssl-cache
> 
> Does that meet the special SSLMutex requirement?

Well, it's not strictly SSLMutex, but any other shared-resource that
requires cross process/cross machine mutexing.