Re: config handling (was: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server core.c)

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 07:31 PM 5/20/2002, Scott Hess wrote:
>On Mon, 20 May 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 12:32:20PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > On Win32, we load-unload-reload the parent, then load-unload-reload
> > > the child config.  Losing both redundant unload-load sequences will
> > > be a huge win at startup.
> >
> > Yup. If we process the tree in a much smarter fashion, then nothing
> > should need to be unloaded.
>
>One thing I _like_ about the load-unload-reload is that it generally
>forces you (the module author) to consider the graceful restart case,
>rather than simply crashing (or getting buggy) the first time someone does
>it.  [Sorry if you're using those terms in a technical fashion that I'm
>not following.]

As much as I agree, a wise soul recently pointed out to me, offline, that
if a module author doesn't test the graceful restart case, that's their
foolishness, everyone shouldn't have to pay for it once [or twice] per
startup :-)

>OTOH, on Windows the parent and child both have to load things, so you get
>a similar effect.

Not really.  It is a nasty effect, but entirely dissimilar :-)

>[Speaking of this, one thing I'd like to see for Windows would be a way
>for the parent process to cache the config (or parse tree) and pass it
>directly to the child, so that you don't have the possibility of changing
>config when a new child is spawned due to MaxRequestsPerChild.  Yeah, I
>_should_ submit a patch rather than a request.]

We tossed about the idea of passing all pool_userdata from conf pool to
the child conf pool.  Dunno if that's the right solution.

But given all the new inheritance we deployed in the winnt mpm, it would
be really nice to make that all accessible to mod_log_config, and it's
cousins, and even more distant relatives such as SSL keys.

Bill