I see your rational, but I am looking at it from the point of view that the user knows that one of the first things that they need to do is tweak the MPM to fit their load/resource requirements. This is more a matter of "where it they go? I could have sworn they were right here a minute ago". And I certainly wouldn't classify them as "extra".
>[ Side note: >The other question is "How much confusion does the presence of these >directives add to the config file?" That mess of <IfModule xxx_mpm> was >horribly confusing IMHO. That could be solved by intelligently >including only the section for the relevant mpm in the default config, >but that would require more complex build changes than I am up to. I agree, but I would still rather see only the applicable platform MPM directives anyway no matter whether they are implemented in httpd.conf or extra/httpd-mpm.conf. Brad >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:17:10 PM >>> Brad Nicholes wrote: > I'm still not a big fan of removing the MPM settings from the httpd.conf > file. All of the other extra .conf files contain supplemental configuration > but the MPM configuration seems to be more along the lines of a ServerRoot or > Listen. Despite the fact that these are technically module directives, MPM > directives just feel more like core directives. It's not really a question of core/module. Lots of core directives were removed too. The question is: "Is this a directive that many/most users need to change?" For most of the mpm directives, the answer is clearly "no". (Although you could argue about something like MaxClients/MaxThreads.) [ Side note: The other question is "How much confusion does the presence of these directives add to the config file?" That mess of <IfModule xxx_mpm> was horribly confusing IMHO. That could be solved by intelligently including only the section for the relevant mpm in the default config, but that would require more complex build changes than I am up to. ] Joshua.
