Jeff Trawick wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
wow, I didn't expect to see this followed up upon. thanks.
maybe httpd developers should be stranded in airports more often... also, several weeks ago somebody was complaining to me about various things they didn't like about Apache 2... one of the ones I took note of was having httpd -V display the name of the MPM... so when I saw your old post I could visualize that to-do getting marked DONE with little effort on my part :)
Server version: Apache/2.1.0-dev Server built: Aug 12 2003 02:25:22 Server's Module Magic Number: 20030213:1 Architecture: 32-bit Server MPM: Prefork
too bad ap_show_mpm doesn't list this like other modules :( ("prefork.c" or "worker.c")... the major source file name is what you need in <IfModule FOO>
hmm... odd. I guess I'll take your word for it that doesn't work now
very minor issue... forget about it :)
but if it doesn't I'd be happy to try and make it work if there is a consensus that it would be a good thing. the only issue I can see is something mentioned in the original thread on test-dev@ - that attributes like being threaded (or not) are generally more useful than the more simplistic approach of looking for worker.c.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-test-dev&m=105795076610731&w=2
do whatever Stas said w.r.t. that :)
nevertheless, I'd be happy to do the scut work here and code both up (httpd -V and IfDefine/IfModule stuff) if some agreement can be reached on exactly what it all ought to look like.
scratch the Ifdefine issue for now... I don't think it is so important... at worst, we just have to change the definition of the MPM_NAME symbol in each MPM's header file
also, we can axe the display of the MPM directory, right? what good is that? or does the test suite use that?
currently, the test suite uses it to infer the mpm (worker, prefork, etc). but I don't see any reason (from the perspective of the perl-framework) that it can't be moved, provided there is some other way to determine the mpm (or relevant underlying mpm attributes).
so if you provide the other info, then the test suite won't need the directory
I'd say definitely yank the display of that directory for 2.1... we can decide when considering the patch for merge to stable branch whether or not we expect to hurt anybody by axing the directory
