On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Sander van Zoest wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > I want to decouple the MPM query function from an actual name. The goal
> > > > should be to report the properties of the MPM, not which exact MPM was
> > > > used. Once that is done, the need for the string disappears.
> > >
> > > I would think you want to provide the actual name as well, on top of
> > > the properties. This probably could be listed just as APACHE_MPM_DIR which
> > > it could query the properties from the actual MPM via a common interface.
> > > Everything found in -V should be used for monitoring/logging.
> >
> > That value is already compiled into the server. But there is currently no
> > way to query it.
>
> Then it should be added somehow. :-))
I disagree. The name doesn't mean anything. How the MPM behaves is what
is important, not what it is called.
> > > What happens when you have incompatibility on a particular platform with
> > > a MPM? It shouldn't just segfault, there should be a way to exit cleanly
> > > explaining why this particular module or piece of code can not run with
> > > the MPM used and the platform.
> >
> > If there is a compatability problem between a platform and an MPM, then we
> > currently do not allow that MPM to be compiled on that platform without
> > direct intervention from the person compiling the server. For example, on
> > FreeBSD, we do not compile with threads unless the admin tells us we have
> > to.
> >
> > > The more accurate information you have in the noc the better. Why monitor
> > > if you do not know what you are monitoring?
> >
> > The problem is that the MPM name is not accurate. We have a habit of
> > changing names of things. The MPM properties are the best way to
> > determine the behavior of the MPM IMNSHO.
>
> Then Apache should start standardising there efforts, ASAP.
> Changing it is just a hell from management perspective.
> Each time when you upgrade a server you have to upgrade
> the management software (whatever that may be) should be
> upgraded to??
We have tried to standardize. The problem is that standardization is
almost never followed 100%. At one time all of the MPMs were supposed to
have a prefix that told whether it was multi-process or multi-threaded.
OS/2 did this correctly. Now, the standard has changed, so that there is
no easy way to determine from the name of the MPM what it's properties
are.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
