httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>
Subject Re: Shambhala
Date Fri, 30 Jun 1995 21:07:46 GMT

Apologies for using short names, (robh = Rob Hartill, rst = Rob Thau).

On Fri, 30 Jun 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> Is Shambhala a drop in replacement binary for apache ?

I think that's rst's design, yes.  I would even be a fan of ditching the 
current configuration file setup for something more logical, but that's a 
huge political problem.  It looks like all that Shambala lacks right now 
is xbithack - and we've discussed better ways of accomplishing that 
functionality (if on a request for file.html, file.shtml exists instead, 
serve that up server-side-include-parsed).

> What are the feelings of all you people listening to this list ?

I think the effort that has been spent on making 0.7 stable and reentrant 
has resulted in very valuable clues and wisdom as to how to properly build a 
non-forking server.  I also think that the future of web servers (and 
apache in particular) deeply involves modular design, something which the 
original NCSA base lacks.  

I think the best course of action would be for you, robh, to get 
shambala and apply any and all wisdom gained from working on 0.7 to 
making it a solid product, and something which we could name Apache 
0.8.  After a few more rounds of feature-adding and debugging (and 
maybe? maybe? HTTP-NG?) we can officially release an Apache 1.0.  Do *not* 
regard this as a vote of no confidence in your work on 0.7, robh - if 
anything it's been fun watching you shove an elephant down the eye of a 
needle :)  

Some questions rst should answer before going further I guess: is making 
Shambala the core of the next rev of Apache alright?  Is it ready to be 
put under the patch database system we have in place?  

I'm presuming all the answers would be "yes".  

The nice thing about having a new source base would be that we could 
divorce the NCSA copyright question entirely (unless there was a good 
chunk of snarfed code from 1.3).  I don't know if anyone wants to change 
it - I certainly have no qualms about leaving it in the public domain.

Those are my thoughts, in any rate.  I hope we can find common ground.

	Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com  brian@hyperreal.com  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/


Mime
View raw message