On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 2016, at 5:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Good point with your example, this is something that should
> > be benchmarked and the winner-take-all, loser bumped from the
> > trunk/ copy of httpd.
>
> -1
>
> You are implying that one would be a winner in all cases. The
> whole idea is that there are cases where one is better than
> the other. We provide both.
>
You might have made that inference, but I'm going to assert that
for this one module, for s/{literal}/{repl}, mod_sed is going to
outperform mod_substitute /if/ we wrote the code correctly. Whas
is missing is a mod_sed directive for adding literal s/{orig}/{repl}/
patterns that follows the substitute syntax and that admins don't
have to wrap their heads around the special character escaping.
At that point, there is no reason for the redundant module, but
we aren't at that point.
Would you also recommend such a scenario with MPMs, and
> having the "winner" take all? I certainly hope not!!!
>
No, I generally agree with TMTOWTDI. Glad you raised the MPMs
issue, because my exact complaint about folding in mod_fcgid
"as is" and overlapping with mod_proxy_fcgi was addressed by the
MPM community in pulling out and sharing the mpm_common.c
logic. Great example, thanks Jim!
