On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:53 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff Trawick wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:54 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Author: trawick >>> Date: Tue Nov 24 14:54:03 2009 >>> New Revision: 883712 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=883712&view=rev >>> Log: >>> document the new Mutex directive, pulling in any existing special >>> considerations described in the >>> documentation of the old LockFile, AcceptMutex, RewriteLock, and SSLMutex >>> directives >> >> I'll axe the old directive documentation and update any other affected >> documentation once wrowe's concern about cross-node lock files is >> resolved (barring any other concerns I'm yet to be informed of ;) ). > > It sounds like this is resolved,
I'm not so sure ;) > and was nothing more than the confusion > I introduced when I didn't update the docs to match the code revision. It is true that your requirement (as I understand it) for the SSL session cache mutex -- that the complete name be fully predictable/configurable and not contain the pid -- was not reflected in the docs. But the Mutex directive and ap_mutex_*() APIs don't currently support that requirement, always appending a pid to the name of the lock file. What about an optional third argument to Mutex to indicate that the pid should be omitted? Mutex default sysvsem Mutex ssl-cache file:/mnt/sesscachedir OmitPid etc. In the ssl-cache example, the name of the mutex will be simply /mnt/sesscachedir/ssl-cache Does that meet the special SSLMutex requirement?
