On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Chris Darroch <chr...@pearsoncmg.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Jeff Trawick wrote: >>>> >>>>> Beyond beta, I think we have something that is clearly better than >>>>> the 2007 mod_fcgid 2.2 release and should get out the door soon as a >>>>> GA (as long as testing doesn't show any regression). I just made >>>>> what I hope are uncontroversial changes to the directive names. >>>>> I'll try to make peace with the rest. It would be great if others >>>>> would decide in the short term what they can't live with. >>>> >>>> The directive name changes look great to me -- thanks very much! >>>> Are there any you remain concerned about? >>> >>> Earlier I posted suggested changes to just about everything (thread >>> "[mod_fcgid] Cleaning up configuration directive names"). I've gotten >>> over that ;) Here are a few from the original list that aren't so >>> important to change but still might be considered an improvement by >>> others: >>> >>> FCGIDOutputBufferSize -> FCGIDResponseBufferSize >>> >>> FCGIDBusyTimeout -> FCGIDRequestTimeout >>> FCGIDBusyScanInterval -> FCGIDRequestTimeoutScanInterval (unfortunate >>> name for unfortunate concept) >> >> Can I make a last-minute plea for readability? Those names suck. >> If we just lowercase the cgid, it would be more readable. >> >> FcgidResponseBufferSize >> FcgidRequestTimeout >> FcgidRequestTimeoutScanInterval >> >> perl -pi -e 's/FCGID/Fcgid/g;' files... > > +1. I'm still working on the final solution to directives.html.xx so if > someone wants to > commit this change in the next hour or two, it will be in the coming release.
on it
