httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <>
Subject Re: Configurable nph filenames
Date Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:39:59 GMT
Alexei Kosut wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> > Hmmm... I would have thought another way of addressing this problem
> > would be just to thread the server (which means only one copy of
> > configuration info, etc., rather than one per transaction).  If we're
> > going threaded anyway over the long term, then NPH- provides a kludge
> > to get around the problem in the meantime, and given the potential
> > back-compatibility problems with it, I'm not sure it's for the best
> > to create another.
> I agree. As for threading...
> has threading in 2.0,
> with a 1.2 in the middle which has a bunch of little-to-medium sized
> project.
> I've been thinking about this, and I see no reason why we can't skip the
> 1.2 step and move directly to 2.0 as our next release. Most of the
> feature-level enhacements in the '1.2' batch can be worked on concurrently
> with threading and autoconfiscation, which are the major things in 2.0.
> And I see no reason to artificially postpone work on them just to release
> 1.2 first - if we remember history, 1.1 was released five months later
> than we originally had planned, because we kept adding more stuff. The
> same thing will no doubt happen with 1.2.
> I once worked on a software project with a couple other people. This
> software was a real RAM hog, and slow to boot, so one of us (not me) sat
> down and started to rewrite the thing, completely. He almost finished,
> too, but in the meantime, the rest of us kept adding stuff to the working
> version, and so the rewritten version, which was much improved, never got
> finished. I envision the same thing happening to a threaded Apache.
> I think some people may be under the impression that threading Apache is
> somehow difficult, or unportable, or something that needs a lot of work. I
> don't think so. RST has already done all the hard work of writing a
> threading package, almost entirely in ANSI C. As I understand it, it will
> work already on 95% of Unix systems, and the rest can be ported to easily
> with a half dozen lines of OS-specific code. 
> I say we move the development version to a threaded server immediately. I
> know others agree with me. Can we put it to a vote or something, so we can
> at least get a clear idea of where we're going, and how better to get
> there?

I'd agree, but I don't want to bulldoze RST into premature release of his code.
On the other hand, I want him to release it as soon as possible...



> -- Alexei Kosut <>            The Apache HTTP Server 

Ben Laurie                  Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435
Freelance Consultant and    Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director          Email:
A.L. Digital Ltd,           URL:
London, England.

View raw message