On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Mladen Turk <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff Trawick wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Mladen Turk <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Jeff Trawick wrote: >> >> >> (no plans here to touch WinNT MPMs, and I don't see any >> compelling reason to leave it broken; it should build as before >> once the inevitable minor slips are corrected) >> >> >> The major problem with that is the huge amount of platform >> dependent code for managing the service, registry and fork. >> (Although -k install and -k uninstall could be a separate >> utility app) >> >> >> Maybe its the lack of sleep, but I see that as a separate code reuse >> issue. I'm not trying to address code reuse with this effort, except with >> minor details where the solution to cutting the ties to the MPM involves a >> shared definition. >> > > Too bad then :) > I was hoping someone will address the separation of > child process management from the mpm. > Majority of this stuff is common and duplicated across > mpms while there can be an api for that thought. >
Yes, the simple mpm inteded to go there, and only uses APR functions for threadpools/fork/processes, rather than native OS functions like the existing winnt/worker/prefork MPMs. Mostly just lack of time on my part to fully flesh out the Simple MPM.../.
