You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 2002/11/08 20:03:18 UTC
Re: broken links at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mpm.html
not acked..
Re: broken links at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mpm.html
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Joshua Slive wrote:
> My feeling is that <module> means current, internal apache module. That
> excludes obsolete modules, third party modules, etc. I think sticking
> with this meaning will make things clearer for the users.
hmm, probably. ok. In this case we should define, what to do with
non-<module> modules ;-). simply take <code>? or do nothing? I'm unsure
about this.
nd
--
$_=q?tvc!uif)%*|#Bopuifs!A`#~tvc!Xibu)%*|qsjou#Kvtu!A`#~tvc!KBQI!)*|~
tvc!ifmm)%*|#Qfsm!A`#~tvc!jt)%*|(Ibdlfs(~ # What the hell is JAPH? ;
@_=split/\s\s+#/;$_=(join''=>map{chr(ord( # André Malo ;
$_)-1)}split//=>$_[0]).$_[1];s s.*s$_see; # http://www.perlig.de/ ;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: broken links at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mpm.html
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:
> * Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:
>
> >> Yes! should we introduce a new attribute "createanchor" (="no" in that
> >> case; "yes" would be default) or something?
> >
> > I would lean towards no. A <module> should always have a corresponding
> > documentation file. The <module> tag is sort of our contract with the
> > user that there is more stuff behind it.
>
> hmm. I mainly thought about sentences like "blah, this is a replacement for
> the old <?>mod_mmap_static</?> module". I'm not sure, what to do there.
> Semantically these are (or were...) modules. Perhaps we should create an
> attribute 'extern="URL"' for such cases or so?
My feeling is that <module> means current, internal apache module. That
excludes obsolete modules, third party modules, etc. I think sticking
with this meaning will make things clearer for the users.
Of course, we can define <module> however we want, as long as we are
consistent.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: broken links at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mpm.html
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Joshua Slive wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:
>> Yes! should we introduce a new attribute "createanchor" (="no" in that
>> case; "yes" would be default) or something?
>
> I would lean towards no. A <module> should always have a corresponding
> documentation file. The <module> tag is sort of our contract with the
> user that there is more stuff behind it.
hmm. I mainly thought about sentences like "blah, this is a replacement for
the old <?>mod_mmap_static</?> module". I'm not sure, what to do there.
Semantically these are (or were...) modules. Perhaps we should create an
attribute 'extern="URL"' for such cases or so?
nd
--
Treat your password like your toothbrush. Don't let anybody else
use it, and get a new one every six months. -- Clifford Stoll
(found in ssl_engine_pphrase.c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: broken links at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mpm.html
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:
> * Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > Please don't just remove the <module> tags around those.
>
> Yes! should we introduce a new attribute "createanchor" (="no" in that
> case; "yes" would be default) or something?
I would lean towards no. A <module> should always have a corresponding
documentation file. The <module> tag is sort of our contract with the
user that there is more stuff behind it.
> Just another point, a little bit related to this: There are some modules
> which don't appear separately (esp. mod_dav_fs, mod_proxy_http,
> mod_proxy_connect and mod_proxy_ftp [and afaics some of the new auth
> modules]). As you may see in CVS, I'm currently running through all the
> docs, mostly correcting formal things... :)
>
> What is the desired way? The current behaviour is hiding the separate
> (sub-)modules. I'd like to create explicit docs files and I'm willing to
> write at least a base, we can work on.
+1. They can be as simple as "This is a supporting module for
<module>mod_proxy</module>" to start.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: broken links at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mpm.html
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Joshua Slive wrote:
> Please don't just remove the <module> tags around those.
Yes! should we introduce a new attribute "createanchor" (="no" in that
case; "yes" would be default) or something?
> The fact that
> those links are broken is pointing out the more important fact that those
> mpms have no documentation. I'm perfectly happy seeing those links remain
> broken until the correct docs appear.
Just another point, a little bit related to this: There are some modules
which don't appear separately (esp. mod_dav_fs, mod_proxy_http,
mod_proxy_connect and mod_proxy_ftp [and afaics some of the new auth
modules]). As you may see in CVS, I'm currently running through all the
docs, mostly correcting formal things... :)
What is the desired way? The current behaviour is hiding the separate
(sub-)modules. I'd like to create explicit docs files and I'm willing to
write at least a base, we can work on.
There are also the two cache provider modules. They are not listed in the
index, too. What's the strategy here?
nd
--
s;.*;aaaaaoaaaoaaaaooooaaoaaaomaaaa:a:alataa:aaoat:a:a:a
maoaa:a:laoata:a:oia:a:o:a:m:a:o:alaoooat:aaool:aaoaa
matooololaaatoto:aaa:o:a:o:m;;s:\s:\::g;y;mailto:;
\40\51/\134\137|ndparker <nd...@perlig.de>;;print;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: broken links at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mpm.html
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
Please don't just remove the <module> tags around those. The fact that
those links are broken is pointing out the more important fact that those
mpms have no documentation. I'm perfectly happy seeing those links remain
broken until the correct docs appear.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> not acked..
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org