On Thursday 19 July 2001 10:32, you wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 12:03:16PM -0400, Greg Ames wrote:
> > > What about the threaded mpm? I can't tell you how it's doing
> > > in production, unfortunately. Yeah, I know a number of folks
> > > have changes they'd like to see in it, but as far as I know
> > > it's in better shape than it was in our 2.0.16 beta.
> > >
> > > tag?
> >
> > +0 (not that my vote is binding in this tree).
> >
> > I'm also not sure of the impact from inherit in the APR code has
> > been tested yet. Wouldn't a pipe (i.e. POD) need to have the
> > inherit flag explicitly set?
>
> The PoD is working correctly, since graceful restart and
> perform_idle_server_maintenance are both working.
Yep. The inherit flag only affects apr_create_process. Since we
create child processes with fork, the inherit flag has no affect.
Basically, the inherit flag will not be able to affect fork() until
fork() becomes a real part of APR, which means somebody needs to
implement it on Windows. :-)
> Again, let's compare the current cvs tree (including the threaded
> mpm) to our one and only 2.0 beta. I believe the current code wins
> hands down, or am I missing something?
Not in my mind. +1 for a tag and roll.
Ryan
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
