slive 00/11/18 12:20:47
Modified:htdocs/manual/mod mod_include.html
Log:
Fix the link to the SSI tutorial.
Revision ChangesPath
1.31 +1 -1 httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/mod/mod_include.html
Index: mod_include.html
> > > 4. I believe that there are going to be many different MPMs using the
> > > same directive names. Unless we can guarantee that all the MPMs will use
> > > the directive in EXACTLY the same way, we will still need to document them
> > > separately and make separate entires in directives.html
[Sorry for the cross-post, I am copying this into new-httpd because these
are all combined documenatation and source-code policy issues.]
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module.
>
> Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't re
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Tony Finch wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module.
> >
> >Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't rely on pthreads
> >anymore. Please, if anybody can come up with a better name, we need it.
>
> I think the importa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module.
>
>Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't rely on pthreads
>anymore. Please, if anybody can come up with a better name, we need it.
I think the important thing is to make the distinction between
mpmt_pthread
> 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module.
Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't rely on pthreads
anymore. Please, if anybody can come up with a better name, we need it.
> 2. Is this format appropriate? It is modeled as closely as possible on
> the new format for other modu
