On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snip]
> > >
> > > Beyond that, there is nothing wrong with being informative :-)
>
> I could not say it better.
>
> >
> > My problem with the name, is that it requires chaning the API or adding a
> > new API to deal with a string.
>
> Maybe this is some argument, but completely invalid. I interpret this
> as I am lazy and don't want to do it. And how do you handle different
> MPMs that have the same capabilities. Most likely with some name
> provided by the MPM module you know more.
This isn't being lazy. This is trying to hold down API creep. I have no
problem changing APIs or adding new ones. I break backwards compatability
almost daily. I do have a problem adding APIs that I haven't heard a
compelling use for. The only use that makes any sense at all for this
string, is for reporting uses. I would suggest that if you absolutely
want to be able to report the MPM name, then use a different function.
> > I would prefer to not modify the API
> > unless we need to now.
>
> Who determines the need?? I see a use and need for it. Does that count??
> Or since I am not an hard-core Apache developper or ASF-member, it does
> not count??
The need is determined by consensus on this list. If you can convince the
people on this list that there is a need, then the change will be made.
Those are the same rules that we all live by. I can't just make a change
to the code. If anybody on this list has a problem with the change, they
can question that change, and I have to back it up.
> > Not that I am dead-set against changing the API, I
> > just want a good reason before we do so. I don't believe that allowing
> > modules to query the name of the MPM is a good reason. IMHO, the correct
> > way for somebody to get the name of the MPM, is to use the ServerString.
>
> The server string gives way more information that needed here.
>
> The problem is that since we do not standardise the capabilities
> the 2 capabilites Ryan would add are not enough. In operational
> environments it is mostly very usefull to know its name or
> vendor of some piece of software, since it may have behavior
> (for instance seg-faults) under certain conditions. This is indeed
> the gray area, but for operators this is part of experience.
> More like, ah, that machine we see this, which version does it have??
> Ok, that happens more, we fix it this way.
Fine, yes it might be useful to get the MPM name. If that is the case,
then use a separate function to get the name. Do not overload the
MPM_query function.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
