> 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.
- [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for prefork MPM Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for prefork MPM Greg Ames
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for prefork M... Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for prefo... Greg Ames
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for p... Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive ... Greg Ames
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit direct... Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for prefork MPM Aaron Bannert
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for prefork M... Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for prefo... Aaron Bannert
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for p... Joshua Slive
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for p... Greg Ames
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for prefork MPM Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for prefork M... Aaron Bannert
- Re: [PATCH] HardServerLimit directive for prefo... Jeff Trawick
