Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-docs-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 29047 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 2003 09:13:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: docs@httpd.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list docs@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 29034 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2003 09:13:38 -0000 Mail-Copies-To: nobody To: docs@httpd.apache.org Subject: What's wrong with 2.1 mod_status documentation? From: Yoshiki Hayashi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:13:50 +0900 Message-ID: <87isr6e65t.fsf@sodan.org> User-Agent: T-gnus/6.15.16 (based on Oort Gnus v0.16) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N httpd-2.1/docs/STATUS says mod_status should be updated to 2.0. manual/mod/mod_status.xml itself says Warning: This document has not been updated to take into account changes made in the 2.0 version of the Apache HTTP Server. Some of the information may still be relevant, but please use it with care. So I glanced the diff (what I actually did was ediff in XEmacs) between apache_1.3.27/src/modules/standard/mod_status.c and httpd-2.1/modules/generators/mod_status.c The most notable difference was 2.1 version introduced two new status flags 'C' and 'I' for Closing and Idle cleanup. Except that the functionality is almost the same. It is true that the document itself looks a bit old, though. There is an obsolete comment mentioning ServerType directive. Perhaps 'child' should be changed to 'worker' since 'child' implies fork/exec. But other than that, mod_status file looks fine to me. Is it OK to change them (remove about standalone mode and inet mode and do s/child/worker/) and remove warning at the top of the document? -- Yoshiki Hayashi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org