----- > Jeff Trawick wrote: > > >Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>I appreciate that you are trying to moderate my usage of the -1 (veto), > >>but feel it is my duty to inform the list as soon as possible that I > >>wouldn't be happy with this big of a change. > >> > > > >Maybe a veto wasn't appropriate, but it seemed clear to me that a > >number of people would rather have the new code side by side with the > >old for a while, and Brian didn't seem disturbed about that notion at > >all. Hopefully nobody will actually go remove worker as soon as > >Brian's code is committed :) > > > > I disagree. Unless someone wants to volunteer to put a workaround > in the current worker code to fix the queue-full case, I can't > rationalize including it in another beta or GA release. We need > to either fix it or remove it. > > --Brian
I am in grudging agreement with Brian. I don't have a lot of time to spend on this, but I'll take a look at making worker behave more like mpm_winnt, which should fix the problem. Bill
