On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 03:20, Paul J Stevens wrote: > I for one would vote against having those patches be accepted into CVS, > and I imagine Ilja wont commit them as they are. > > Don't get me wrong though; inetd functionality is a valuable attribute, > but I don't think they should be acquired by forking existing files. > > Personally, since I'm working on pre-forking functionality ala apache, > I'm pretty certain server.c is where such changes should occur. > > And we should definitely allow admins to select such settings runtime: > SERVERTYPE=<inetd|standalone>
All I was saying is that I think some type of xinetd functionality should be added to the 2.0 branch. If this implmentation (patch) doesn't cut the mustard, then fine we need to rework it, but I would like to see (x)inetd supported, somehow. Matthew
