On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 08:51:47AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As I said when this was originally discussed, I really dislike this. -X
> is the exact same as -DONE_PROCESS. We now have two ways to get into the
> same state. Yuck! We made a conscious decision to go with -DONE_PROCESS,
> the original goal being to move towards environment variables instead of
> command line arguments. The !! was there by the way, because it solved a
> lot of bugs on many platforms.
No, I don't see -X as the same as -DONE_PROCESS. -X says, "Whatever
you have to do across the entire system to achieve a debug state, do
it." -DONE_PROCESS says, "Tell your MPM to only have one process."
Very different things. I think ONE_PROCESS has too narrow of a scope.
Yes, they *might* achieve the same result, but that isn't a big deal
(IMHO). What if a module wants to achieve some type of internal
debugging check or special behavior at run-time (plausible?), it can
check for the existance of the DEBUG directive? Checking ONE_PROCESS
in a module doesn't make any semantic sense.
And another point is -X is in most of the printed documentation. And,
to most casual users, ONE_PROCESS wouldn't imply "debug" mode (which is
how this thread got started). It needs to be obvious. -X is the
precedent that has been set before. And, they can use -DDEBUG as well.
That seems reasonably sane to me.
About the !!. The value returned from ap_exists_config_define()
is either 0 or 1. And, it is an integer (no bools in C). All we are
doing with the values are the standard "is this non-zero" check in
C (if (foo) {...). C++ would do the !! to convert an int to a bool.
If we are getting type errors checking for an integer being non-zero,
we have lots of problems in our code (not to mention our C compilers).
> In all, I am -0.9 for this patch, I won't veto it, but I don't want to see
> it in the code. If we do put the -X back in, then remove -DONE_PROCESS.
> Having both is just bogus.
I don't have a binding vote on this matter. I'll let people with
binding votes discuss this. I personally can see the need for having
BOTH ONE_PROCESS and DEBUG. They just mean different things. But, if I
had to choose, DEBUG would win out as it is more versatile. -- justin
