On 04 Dec 2011, at 12:28 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > It isn't. Someone trimming their LoadModule lines will undoubtedly > hit the wall trying to figure out why they couldn't just switch from > memcache or dbm back to shmcb. Someone else will break there server > simply removing unfamiliar modules from the list, particularly one > which appears nowhere in the ASF HTTP Server module documents lists.
This is definitely a problem, but the changes to the error messages should make it clear to end users what their course of action should be. We're a modular server, adding a module to get something is normal. > This, and the mod_slotmem_* objects, really make lousy modules. > > I can understand wanting to extend socache and slotmem into much > more complex or experimental backend stores. Extensibility is good. > But for the time being, and for this fundamental set... > > can we please trash all 6 "modules" and add the code into core? > It seems to me that even apreq extensions are in a more usable, > documented state than these... and we refuse to incorporate it. > I think we got things backwards. This is just moving the furniture though, it doesn't solve the core problem, which is that they need to be documented (and the API wrong-ness you've pointed out needs to be fixed). Regards, Graham --
