From: "dean gaudet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:14 PM
> 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.
Make that +1001, if we are avoiding the Thread/Process labels, then ignore
the danged things. Accept in all mpms - and emit a warning that goes something
like "WorkersPerChild has no effect in mpm_pthread". No vi httpd.conf required.
> 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?
I was just thinking something more ominous ... 2.0 must be nearing release ;-)
