> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

> 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.

How about MaxClientsLimit or something in that veign.

I'm really not thrilled about the whole idea of having one directive to
limit another directive.  I understand why it is necessary, but it is going
to be a pain to explain.

Joshua.

Reply via email to