You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2007/01/04 07:49:10 UTC
Headache, Win32 Service Name for Apache 2.2
The default service name is Apache2, both in the 2.0 and 2.2 WinNT MPMs.
With the installer, I had tweaked (a separate setting) the service name
default to be Apache2.2. HOWEVER, when users transition from the .msi
installed version to the command line, they are surprised by the fact
that Apache2 isn't installed, and they need to provide -n Apache2.2 as
an argument to httpd.exe commands related to the service.
Note this is the internal name of the service, not the name of any binary
which is (and will forever stay) httpd.exe.
One of three things can happen here... please express your preference
(if you have one)
[ ] Change the MPM code to use Apache2.2 by default (and Apache2.4 in trunk)
[ ] Change the Installer to go back to Apache2 as the default service
(this makes parallel installs of Apache2.0 and Apache2.2 more troublesome.)
[ ] Change nothing, just document the discrepancy.
I'm leaning twords #1 and would like to fix this with release 2.2.4, so three
voters who share the preference would be greatly appreciated.
Re: Headache, Win32 Service Name for Apache 2.2
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> The default service name is Apache2, both in the 2.0 and 2.2 WinNT MPMs.
>
> With the installer, I had tweaked (a separate setting) the service name
> default to be Apache2.2. HOWEVER, when users transition from the .msi
> installed version to the command line, they are surprised by the fact
> that Apache2 isn't installed, and they need to provide -n Apache2.2 as
> an argument to httpd.exe commands related to the service.
>
> Note this is the internal name of the service, not the name of any binary
> which is (and will forever stay) httpd.exe.
>
> One of three things can happen here... please express your preference
> (if you have one)
>
> [ ] Change the MPM code to use Apache2.2 by default (and Apache2.4 in trunk)
> [X] Change the Installer to go back to Apache2 as the default service
> (this makes parallel installs of Apache2.0 and Apache2.2 more troublesome.)
> [ ] Change nothing, just document the discrepancy.
>
> I'm leaning twords #1 and would like to fix this with release 2.2.4, so three
> voters who share the preference would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
For the reasons given my Mladen and Issac
Bill
Re: Headache, Win32 Service Name for Apache 2.2
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> The default service name is Apache2, both in the 2.0 and 2.2 WinNT MPMs.
>
>
> One of three things can happen here... please express your preference
> (if you have one)
>
> [ ] Change the MPM code to use Apache2.2 by default (and Apache2.4 in trunk)
> [X] Change the Installer to go back to Apache2 as the default service
> (this makes parallel installs of Apache2.0 and Apache2.2 more troublesome.)
> [ ] Change nothing, just document the discrepancy.
>
> I'm leaning twords #1 and would like to fix this with release 2.2.4, so three
> voters who share the preference would be greatly appreciated.
>
I agree with Isaac and his arguments.
Having multiple web servers on the same box requires more then
a few mouse clicks. Default service name in that case is irrelevant,
because no mater how you name it, it will always collide with already
installed one at some point.
Regards,
Mladen.
Re: Headache, Win32 Service Name for Apache 2.2
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> One of three things can happen here... please express your preference
> (if you have one)
>
> [ ] Change the MPM code to use Apache2.2 by default (and Apache2.4 in trunk)
> [X] Change the Installer to go back to Apache2 as the default service
> (this makes parallel installs of Apache2.0 and Apache2.2 more troublesome.)
> [ ] Change nothing, just document the discrepancy.
>
Rationale: Most users don't need concurrent service installs. For the
few that that do, most don't need cross-version service installs (at
least between 2.x versions[1]). As far as anyone who passes both of
those, if he's intelligent enough to manage the separate ports and the
rest of the overhead of having multiple webservers on a single server,
he's probably intelligent enough to manage the service names too.
For the rest of us, it's a pain to need to remember what version is
installed on every machine. It's also shorter typing to net start
apache2 than to net start apache2.2. And if I have multiple apache's
I'm probably going to net start apachefoo rather than httpd -k start -n
apachefoo
Issac
[1] 1.3 and 2.x installs may be more common on win32 if someone has
proprietary modules for 1.3 and can't port to 2.0, but still wants a 2.0
front-end for stability
Re: Headache, Win32 Service Name for Apache 2.2
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Sander Temme wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2007, at 10:49 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> [X] Change the Installer to go back to Apache2 as the default service
>> (this makes parallel installs of Apache2.0 and Apache2.2 more
>> troublesome.)
>
> Changing the service name would violate the Principle of Least Surprise,
> and I think that once someone wants to have multiple Apache versions
> installed, as services, they can grok the concept of customizing the
> Service name as they see fit.
Sold, all four of your responses are greatly appreciated. This is already
changed in the httpd/win32-msi/ repository as of this morning (I was sold
at three responses.)
Re: Headache, Win32 Service Name for Apache 2.2
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Jan 3, 2007, at 10:49 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> [ ] Change the MPM code to use Apache2.2 by default (and Apache2.4
> in trunk)
> [X] Change the Installer to go back to Apache2 as the default service
> (this makes parallel installs of Apache2.0 and Apache2.2 more
> troublesome.)
> [ ] Change nothing, just document the discrepancy.
For my own use, I would advocate (and do have in production) the
first variant. However, the arguments made by Issac and Mladen are
compelling.
Changing the service name would violate the Principle of Least
Surprise, and I think that once someone wants to have multiple Apache
versions installed, as services, they can grok the concept of
customizing the Service name as they see fit.
S.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF