On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 02:26:25PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > s/HardServerLimit/SoftServerLimit/ ? I'm only suggesting this since > > the semantics of HARD_SERVER_LIMIT != HardServerLimit. > > I hear what you're saying but I am not crazy about > "SoftServerLimit"/"SoftThreadLimit". Somebody please +1 Aaron's > suggestion and I'll eagerly comply! (Maybe I'll comply anyway... just > not comfortable yet...)
I'm not crazy about "SoftServerLimit" either, but I think we'd be better off with something not similiar to HARD_SERVER_LIMIT. -aaron
