2009/9/1 Taavi Sannik <[email protected]>: > Lazy wrote: >> Configuration incompatibility is a big problem for me. Newer syntax is >> better and more flexible i would like to migrate our config to it, but >> in the meanwhile I ned compatibility with old Processor and >> ServerEnvironment syntax. I think this shuldn't take much to provide >> this without any impact on the new features, litle code refactoring >> and some smart checks in configuration functions should do the trick. >> If it's likely to be accepted in 0.4 I will start working on it. >> > > I wouldn't mind having backwards compatibility, but perhaps we should > use something like create_default_senv(), which creates a server > environment with default values (eg min and max processors according to > the configuration). Currently if we would make a create_processor(), > then it would need a lot of arguments (min_processors, max_processors, > min_free_processors along with chroot and other stuff). > > With create_default_senv(), the old Processor function would create the > senv, add uid/gid, name and chroot to it and passes it on to the > child_add(). The new Processor function would use it pretty much the > same, except it just sets more options.
this is a good idea, I can easly remove procesors from my configs and ServerEnvironment could parse old config if it has more then 1 argument, old Processor could be added for compatibility adding some wornings about old config being used, when I have time I will try and produce a patch for it > >> Second thing is svn repository, wouldn't it be more usefull to have >> full httpd source in the repo to ease sending patches that modify >> things outside peruser directory >> (base patch does this). It should be based on current stable httpd >> release (rebasing should be wery simple because there are almost no >> files shared with stock httpd). >> Now sharing patches is a mundane task, I have to get 2 pristine >> sources, patch with 0.3, dc3, dc3-frebsd57 finally make my changes, >> diff, remove garbage produced in >> source tree during test builds. This vs svn diff makes a difference > > I think this is a good idea - I have added the Apache 2.2.13 tree to the > trunk. It also includes some new changes for 0.4.0 release (see the > commit message for specifics). I'd suggest making the changes based on this. how to get access to the repository ? my login and password from trac don't work on svn -- Lazy _______________________________________________ Peruser mailing list [email protected] http://www.telana.com/mailman/listinfo/peruser
