Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote ..
Graham Dumpleton (JIRA) wrote:
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-202?page=comments#action_12448585
]
Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-202:
A configuration option can possibly be modelled off how the AcceptMutex
directive for Apache works. Ie:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mpm_common.html#acceptmutex
Would just need to decide whether we do it as a PythonOption or introduce
a new directive instead.
We seem to be going pretty far down the road with PythonOption and our
new namespace, so I'm inclined to stick with that, unless there is some
sort of performance implication.
An option for this would be like the number of mutex locks in that it is only
checked at mod_python startup, thus performance is not an issue.
I was thinking more along the lines of the configuration context -
PythonOption can be anywhere, so you could end up with a bloated
dictionary. This is likely to be a minor quibble though. I'm sure we can
find other places to optimize first. I keep wondering how FieldStorage
might behave if it was written in C. ;)
FWIW, I
have no problem with continuing with PythonOption for these things. Certainly
saves all the extra coding required to add a new directive. :-)
Exactly. Less code == fewer bugs.
Jim
