On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> don't use it. We intentionally do not check for OOM conditions because,
> though we've had many heated debates about this, we've always arrived at
> the consensus that if you hit OOM, your box is hosed anyway and virtually
> any effort you make to corre
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, [ISO-8859-1] André Malo wrote:
> ID 2 ... hmm, am I blind or don't we have an abort_fn registered in our
> pools? Why? That would solve a lot of problems, IMHO. If there's an
> abort_fn registered, all IDs referencing to this one are invalid.
There is such a feature in the poo
* Marc Slemko wrote:
> But yes, there are some issues they point out that should be fixed if they
> are still present. Fixing them certainly won't significantly change the
> overall software quality though.
Well, let's have a look. My first analysis:
ID 1 seems to be invalid, the preconditions
(re. the poor quality cnet story that is just advertising, and the
corresponding slashdot post)
Yea... umh... some of their analysis is pretty poor. I didn't forward
this earlier as I assumed someone more involved in httpd devlopment right
now would.
But yes, there are some issues they point out
