On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:58 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Jeff Trawick wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> That seems sensible, but I'm left wondering how many different naming >> conventions we can fit on one directive line. Perhaps bOmitPID instead ;-) >> This really becomes harder to follow than the existing multiple-syntaxes. >> >> Is there any reason not to name these mutexes in MixedCase? > > I like having the mutex type name as of the filename, and mixed case > filenames are unexpected. Beyond that, MixedCase and the "." before > the pid suffix don't totally resolve readability. Modules like > mod_watchdog with multi-instance mutexes provide an instance string > which gets inserted as "-" string prior to the . pid suffix. > > If the watchdog names are heartbeat and dialup (wild guess; I didn't > look closely or try to configure the thing), the files would be > > logs/watchdog-callback-heartbeat.1359 > logs/watchdog-callback-dialup.1359 > > (These are both instances of the "watchdog-callback" type, which is > what would be specified on the Mutex directive.) > >> Is there any reason we can't invert the arg order, so that we have >> >> Mutex mutextype:name Resource [Resource ...] [OmitPid] > > Maybe it would be clearer if the optional OmitPid came before the list > of mutexes? > >> >> Of course, default could be assumed here. So the above becomes >> >> Mutex SysVSem >> Mutex file:/mnt/sesscachedir SSLSessionCache OmitPid >> >> (note the Resource tag can be the actual directive being mutexed, instead >> of an alt-name). >> >> Thoughts? > > I'm fine with putting the mechanism:dir first followed by a list of > mutex type names. I'm not sure about where to put the OmitPid though. > I guess you get used to either after a while. > > (Joe suggested "Mutex name1,name2,name3 mechanism:dir"; I didn't get > around to splitting up the first arg to implement that.) > >>> In the ssl-cache example, the name of the mutex will be simply >>> /mnt/sesscachedir/ssl-cache >>>
In case it wasn't clear, I'm very eager to clear up/re-implement/etc. any remaining details of this lovely mess, but I'm hoping that more minds will show up and then converge to something (anything) on the more subjective aspects.
