Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:10:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: MPM-Event, renaming MaxClients, etc.
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikZ7oqEZK1S5feLU4fSupjvVXzxuw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1106211959430.20687@eru.sfritsch.de>
References: <201106191449.32174.sf@sfritsch.de>
 <201106202101.11894.sf@sfritsch.de>
 <87A23CEB-F79F-40C6-B675-EA316E246C26@gbiv.com>
 <201106202336.50645.sf@sfritsch.de> <4DFFC019.8010105@rowe-clan.net>
 <985E8265-3425-4390-B2E2-88517B1A6D38@gbiv.com>
 <BANLkTikZ7oqEZK1S5feLU4fSupjvVXzxuw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED;
 BOUNDARY="683461219-1765774414-1308679817=:20687"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--683461219-1765774414-1308679817=:20687
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrot=
e:
>> My point wasn't the warning, actually, but rather the fact that a config
>> that uses MaxRequestWorkers (instead of MaxClients) will abort an instan=
ce
>> of httpd 2.2.x. =A0Hence, a person upgrading to 2.4.x will get tripped u=
p
>> if they try to do so incrementally with shared config files across
>> many web servers, unless they happen to notice that this change is
>> merely cosmetic and they keep MaxClients instead.
>>
>> For a trivial improvement like this, we should make it easier on admins
>> by backporting the alias to 2.2.x (even if we do not use it on 2.2.x).
>>
>> ....Roy
>
> Many (most?) admins will be encountering other one-way changes (e.g.,
> AcceptMutex,SSLMutex -> Mutex).  Using one config for both 2.2.x and
> 2.4.x is going to be an IfVersion exercise.
>
> I think they'd be better served with an IfVersion cheatsheet at the
> bottom of http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html than with
> addressing a subset of changes by adding compatibility code to 2.2.x.

I also can't imagine any config running without changes. Think of=20
mod_access_compat now being required for Allow/Deny/Satisfy/Order.

I am not against backporting things that make upgrading easier. But we=20
should wait with that until 2.4.0 is out and then see which changes would=
=20
actually make sense.

Cheers,
Stefan

--683461219-1765774414-1308679817=:20687--