On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Nobody showed up, but that's okay... I plan to switch to Mutex mutextype[:lockfiledir] [Resource ...] [OmitPid] in the next few days unless somebody speaks up.
