Jyri Virkki wrote: > >> If we can modify apachectl interface (like adding more options), >> then there is no need for another script. >> > > Please be mindful about stating whether you are talking about public > interfaces or implementation detail whenever you refer to "another > script", as it makes all the difference... > > IF you meant yet another public interface to start the server, no, > that is not an option. It's important there be no confusion here! > There are only two public interfaces: > > - "svcadm enable apache2" - the formal Sun-supported way > - "apachectl start" - the well-known way from the apache community > > > IF you meant additional scripts as part of [hidden] implementation > detail, then sure, if needed. Implementation simplicity is a virtue, > so fewer is better but if some additional implementation script is > truly needed that's ok. These are not things a customer will ever > invoke or need to worry about. > > Jyri - Are we allowed to do the following - add new commands to apachectl like so that users can start the server either in prefork or in worker MPM. apachectl start -> to start in prefork mode. apachectl start-worker -> to start in worker mode (this should be considered as extension to existing apachectl interface)
with respect to SMF, customers will need to use svcs prop to switch between prefork and worker MPM. Now, I have in my previous mail (to this thread), I have proposed how apachectl -> SMF -> startup of server can be tied together. Do you see any issues with this suggestion thanks sriram
