> commited to 2.1-dev... thanks!
sure. and thanks for taking the time to shepherd it through.
--Geoff
Geoffrey Young wrote:
here is the latest patch. basically, it's the same as what I submitted
before. the differences are those suggested by stas and jeff - make the
AP_MPMQ_STATIC/DYNAMIC wording a bit better and axe the "-D APACHE_MPM_DIR="
stuff.
commited to 2.1-dev... thanks!
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 02:10 PM 12/3/2003, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
>
MaxThreadsPerChild 5
>>>
>>>
>>>This rubs me the wrong way FWIW.
>>
>>oops, sorry :)
>
>
> I don't care for that container either... but even horrible new ideas
> are always good when then ge
At 02:10 PM 12/3/2003, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>>>
>>> MaxThreadsPerChild 5
>>>
>>
>>
>> This rubs me the wrong way FWIW.
>
>oops, sorry :)
I don't care for that container either... but even horrible new ideas
are always good when then generate more ideas :)
>> If somebody really want
>>
>> MaxThreadsPerChild 5
>>
>
>
> This rubs me the wrong way FWIW.
oops, sorry :)
> I think it is best to have all
> directives for a specific MPM together in one container, and have that
> container specific to the MPM.
well, in some cases I'd certainly agree. however, I think
Geoffrey Young wrote:
here is the latest patch. basically, it's the same as what I submitted
before. the differences are those suggested by stas and jeff - make the
AP_MPMQ_STATIC/DYNAMIC wording a bit better and axe the "-D APACHE_MPM_DIR="
stuff.
this looks good to me (i.e., this is the last c
Geoffrey Young wrote:
contrary to your advice, I took the initiative and coded
against 2.1. basically, this would allow you to group threaded directives
together. so, instead of this
ThreadsPerChild 5
and so on for every threaded mpm, we could have
MaxThreadsPerChild 5
This
> I'll work on the real httpd -V
> stuff later this afternoon.
here is the latest patch. basically, it's the same as what I submitted
before. the differences are those suggested by stas and jeff - make the
AP_MPMQ_STATIC/DYNAMIC wording a bit better and axe the "-D APACHE_MPM_DIR="
stuff.
so, t
>> wow, I didn't expect to see this followed up upon. thanks.
>
>
> maybe httpd developers should be stranded in airports more often...
> also, several weeks ago somebody was complaining to me about various
> things they didn't like about Apache 2... one of the ones I took note of
> was having
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
wow, I didn't expect to see this followed up upon. thanks.
maybe httpd developers should be stranded in airports more often... also,
several weeks ago somebody was complaining to me about various things they
didn't like about Apa
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
wow, I didn't expect to see this followed up upon. thanks.
Server version: Apache/2.1.0-dev
Server built: Aug 12 2003 02:25:22
Server's Module Magic Number: 20030213:1
Architecture: 32-bit
Server MPM: Prefork
too bad ap_show_mpm doesn't list
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Server version: Apache/2.1.0-dev
Server built: Aug 12 2003 02:25:22
Server's Module Magic Number: 20030213:1
Architecture: 32-bit
Server MPM: Prefork
too bad ap_show_mpm doesn't list this like other modules :( ("prefork.c" or
"worker.c")... the major source file name
Geoffrey Young wrote:
this came up on test-dev@ a while ago. while we haven't quite fully
settled on an interface to Apache-Test yet, I thought to post this patch
here, since it implements some XXX comments in core. the output for the
prefork and worker builds I have look like
Server version:
this came up on test-dev@ a while ago. while we haven't quite fully settled
on an interface to Apache-Test yet, I thought to post this patch here, since
it implements some XXX comments in core. the output for the prefork and
worker builds I have look like
Server version: Apache/2.1.0-dev
Serv
14 matches
Mail list logo
