[PATCH] windows.xml total rewrite

[Iikka Meriläinen <Ii...@pato.vaala.fi>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi!

Here's a draft version of the rewritten windows.xml. This patch is against
windows.xml, but the contents here are combined from windows.xml and
win_service.xml.

I've updated the information and organized the topics better (I think so :-)
than before. If this rewrite gets approval, this makes win_service.xml
completely obsolete.

Sorry about sending the patch sa an attachment, but there are some quite
long URLs that couldn't be line-wrapped.

I have a couple of technical questions concerning the Windows docs, too.
- - Apache 2.0's support for Windows 9x? How reliable? Not reliable at all?
What is the situation of pseudo-services on those platforms?

- - What is the minimal version of Microsfot Installer? Does 1.1 suffice?

- - Does Apache 2.0 log _any_ events to the Windows event log? Some documents
state that startup events are logged there, but other errors are logged to
error.log.

- - Can Apache Service Monitor be used with 9x pseudo-services?

- - Whe doing a binary installation for a single user, on port 8080, manual
startup, does the install create registry values for ServerRoot into
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Apache Group\Apache? It looks like only port 80 service
installations come with the registry value insertion.


What I really need now is comments! Is the new organization/contents OK? Is
it clear enough? Is it OK to "merge" windows.xml and win_service.xml into
one windows.xml file?

Best regards,
Iikka

========================================
 Iikka Meril�inen
 Vaala, Finland
 E-mail: Iikka.Merilainen@pato.vaala.fi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE98LXZCVGYZ+r4ZncRAgF0AKC7G4VJj/GQvkK2RA/j2Yp41TV2ZQCgsX5P
zC4EJcw2XRsVxK5nbRE059w=
=1XrP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [PATCH] windows.xml total rewrite

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>]

At 08:36 AM 12/6/2002, Iikka Meriläinen wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Hi!
>
>Here's a draft version of the rewritten windows.xml. This patch is against
>windows.xml, but the contents here are combined from windows.xml and
>win_service.xml.
>
>I've updated the information and organized the topics better (I think so :-)
>than before. If this rewrite gets approval, this makes win_service.xml
>completely obsolete.
>
>Sorry about sending the patch sa an attachment, but there are some quite
>long URLs that couldn't be line-wrapped.
>
>I have a couple of technical questions concerning the Windows docs, too.
>- - Apache 2.0's support for Windows 9x? How reliable? Not reliable at all?
>What is the situation of pseudo-services on those platforms?

Up to and as of 2.0.43 - Win9x services do not yet include improvements
made in in the most recent 1.3 versions.  This is expected to change in
the future, certainly by the release of 2.2.

However, it works although it's somewhat rough and not well supported, as
there are few developers who have continued working in a 9x environment.

>- - What is the minimal version of Microsfot Installer? Does 1.1 suffice?

Yes, 1.1 should suffice, with the exception of the 1.1 version distributed
with older Microsoft Office products [which was horribly buggy].  A quick
review through the MSKB will demonstrate that.  We suppose that 1.2
should be recommended to avoid folks even trying a buggy 1.1 version.

>- - Does Apache 2.0 log _any_ events to the Windows event log? Some documents
>state that startup events are logged there, but other errors are logged to
>error.log.

Startup errors go to the Windows event log.  That is to say, if we never
get to processing the ErrorLog directive, that's where you will find the
error.  Or consider if the ErrorLog file couldn't be opened.

Later errors always go to the Apache error.log file, once we've opened
the ErrorLog.  {All child-process errors are logged in Apache's error.log
as of 2.0.39 or so, since we pass the child the handle to the main
error.log.}

>- - Can Apache Service Monitor be used with 9x pseudo-services?

Yes, it certainly should work.  Buggy perhaps, but that's part of the reason
why the Apache service monitor exists.

>- - Whe doing a binary installation for a single user, on port 8080, manual
>startup, does the install create registry values for ServerRoot into
>HKLM\SOFTWARE\Apache Group\Apache? It looks like only port 80 service
>installations come with the registry value insertion.

Look into HKCU\SOFTWARE\Apache Group\Apache.  If they choose to install
"Only For Me" - well that's what they {should} get.  No HKLM configuration,
that install should be 'private'.

>What I really need now is comments! Is the new organization/contents OK? Is
>it clear enough? Is it OK to "merge" windows.xml and win_service.xml into
>one windows.xml file?

Yes, just don't try folding win_compiling.xml into it as well, since that's of
interest only to 2% of win32 users, and will confuse the heck out much of
the rest of our users :-)

I'd be happy to do a complete review after another cycle.

Bill