On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I have made a new patch for the mpm_query functionality.
> > >
> > > 1) This patch extends the information that can be retrieved.
> > > 2) It also allows to return an MPM_TYPE which is a string.
> > > This is used to provide some additional information
> > > about the MPM used. It even could be used by an MPM
> > > developper to provide an arbitrary human readable
> > > string which can be used for management purposes.
> >
> > -1 for returning the string from this function. It makes the function
> > harder to read and to use. If you absolutely must have a way to query the
> > MPM name, then use a separate function for it. Something like
> > ap_show_mpm() like Sander suggested yesterday.
>
> You definitly have not understood the use of it.
> But that does not matter. I know you act like the APACHE
> 2.0 police.
>
> I now start thinking that the MPM_TYPE should be an MPM_DESCR.
> and for what the ap_show_mpm goes it can use the mpm_query to
> provide the proper values. IMHO, the ap_show_mpm
> is a not wrapper around ap_mpm_query.
What?!? How have I not understood the use of it? I have simply said that
adding the ability to return a string from that function makes the code
unnecessarily ugly. I have suggested using a separate function for
getting the same information that you want. I am not removing
functionality, I am asking to make the code and the API simpler.
ap_show_mpm should definately not be a wrapper around ap_mpm_query. if
you are going to do that, then just don't create ap_show_mpm. The goal is
to keep the API simple, not to make it overly complex by having two ways
to get the exact same information.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
