> > > 4. I believe that there are going to be many different MPMs using the
> > > same directive names. Unless we can guarantee that all the MPMs will use
> > > the directive in EXACTLY the same way, we will still need to document them
> > > separately and make separate entires in directives.html
[Sorry for the cross-post, I am copying this into new-httpd because these
are all combined documenatation and source-code policy issues.]
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module.
>
> Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't re
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Tony Finch wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module.
> >
> >Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't rely on pthreads
> >anymore. Please, if anybody can come up with a better name, we need it.
>
> I think the importa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module.
>
>Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't rely on pthreads
>anymore. Please, if anybody can come up with a better name, we need it.
I think the important thing is to make the distinction between
mpmt_pthread
> 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module.
Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't rely on pthreads
anymore. Please, if anybody can come up with a better name, we need it.
> 2. Is this format appropriate? It is modeled as closely as possible on
> the new format for other modu
I just committed a first try at an MPM doc. Feedback would be
appreciated. I figured I would just commit it, rather than post it here
first, because
1. it touched a bunch of files so was difficult to review outside the
repository; and
2. the 2.0 docs are in such a sorry state that I figured I co
