On Thursday 06 of March 2014, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > If you want to truly re-architect the MPM, by all means, propose it as > another MPM module. If it isn't adopted here, please don't hesitate > to offer it to interested users as separate source (although I hope we > find a way to adopt it.) > > The idea of different MPM's was that they were swappable. MPM foo > isn't MPM bar. E.g., worker, prefork, event each have their own tree. > Likewise, there is nothing stopping us from having 2, or 3 MPM's on > Windows, and there is nothing stopping us from stating that there is a > prerequisite on a particular MPM of Linux 3.1 kernels or Windows > 2008+.
I dislike idea of "yet another mpm". More mpm means that each mpm gets lower developer resources and lower testing (and external mpm, distributed outside apache get almost no devs and no testing). Less MPMs is better IMO. So better to improve existing ones than invent new one. > (although I hope we find a way to adopt it.) +1 -- Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / maven.pl
