On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:20:59 -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>Sorry, didn't mean to send this to the list. When I said it was messed up,
>I meant the OS/2 MPM wasn't like the rest of them. My general feeling
>is that if the OS/2 or Windows MPMs don't make sense, leave them alone,
>and let the developers who understand them do any work on them
>later.
Fair enough. It is actually quite a mess due to the fact that it was a
quick hack port of prefork with threads substituted for processes. I'm
currently working on an mpmt MPM for OS/2 that will replace it, written
from scratch. It currently runs & serves requests but still needs some work
to be complete.
I'd like to call it mpmt_os2 but MPM naming seems to have moved away from
that convention (which I prefered). Do we have an MPM naming convension or
is it just whatever the author feels like?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
