At 07:11 PM 3/27/2003, Jim Jagielski wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> >> At 06:12 PM 3/27/2003, you wrote: >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >> This patch allows SSLMutex default:logs/ssl_mutex syntax. It also >> >> removes the mod_ssl historical '.pid' suffixes - that isn't how Apache2 >> >> specifies files. >> >> >> > >> >LockFile (for AcceptMutex) still appends .pid >> >> Hmmm. Not an issue today because the winnt mpm doesn't use the >> AcceptMutex code. But good to note. >> >> Any objections to dropping .pid from SSLMutex'es? >> > >Hmmm... Well, the reason we do it for the accept mutex lockfile is >so when using the default setting, you can have multiple Apache instances >on the same server and not worry about clobbering the lockfile. If >we have a default lockfile for SSLMutex, then we should protect it. >So we have something like logs/ssl_mutex??
Hmmm. Funny - because you must already make an effort to create distinct access logs/error logs/pid file/shared dbm's. Actually - and this is a *REALLY* good argument against the pid BS, if you would like to run four apache instances sharing the same dbm, guess what? You better be using the same mutex file. If we really are doing that for the accept mutex it's fine, one apache server can't open another server's listeners. But several apache instances may share the same dbm cache file, and they must be all sharing the same protection. So thanks, you have sold me on the benefits of not appending '.pid', even if you hadn't intended to ... Sometimes, just the dev@ process of thinking through every oddball ramification as a group can bring out these sorts of 'oh, duh' observations :-) Bill
