I won't probably agree if we use 'Waboozle', and I suggest that the description should with the name of the module like MemCache* and DiskCache* to make it easier for related directives to be grouped together (sorted).
I'd really prefer for all caching directives to be under Cache* so that the alphabetical ordering of the directives that we generate in our docs group them together. Using MemCache* and DiskCache* instead of CacheMem* and CacheDisk* sort of blow that away.
(However, I won't fight this too hard, but just want to make my preference clear.)
If we go through the process of renaming the directives (and I'm +1 to making it consistent per my first paragraph), I'd like to see us toss all of the directives we don't implement.My only worry there is that they will disappear forever instead of always annoying us every time we open the c file or look at the doc page.
If we truly mean for it to be out of experimental, then it shouldn't have any no-op directives. That's exceedingly bad form, IMHO.
BTW, are you volunteering to take the lead on this? ;-) -- justinYes with pleasure, this is why I started the debate.
Yay! -- justin
