Re: ThreadsPerChild - should it include the implicit signal thread?

[dean gaudet]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> Then let us call it 'WorkersPerChild,' confound it!  Or whatever
> name we use for 'entity capable of serving a request'!

+1000.

it's 2.0, please make the configuration directives meaningful.  i think i
had an XXX or TODO or somesuch comment in the code somewhere suggesting
this... i know it was on my mind in the MPM split -- each architecture
could have whatever directives made the most sense.

-dean

p.s. isn't it a sign of the apocalypse that ken and i are in agreement?