httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Skolnick <cl...@organic.com>
Subject Re: Configurable nph filenames
Date Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:26:41 GMT
On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 rasmus@madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca wrote:

> > 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 would also like to see this, but as many of us remember the conversion
to the current apache from the NCSA base server was not easy.  At that
time we really had to change to bring the server to the next level
(pre-forking) while still keeping the code base clean.  [BTW I am not
trying to restart any apache 0.7 vs. 0.8 wars here]  The API provided a
signifacant functional advantage over the API-less version and the choice
was made.  Please don't flame me...I say this to get people to remember
the engineering difficulty, not politics.

While threading is a nice feature which I really really want, I don't
think it is enough of a reason to switch 100% of our developement effort
over.  Let's face it most web sites today get only a part of t1 bandwidth,
and a 386 with 16MB can fill that with apache if needed (depending on your
documents, I am assuming coloection of static docs and not CGIs). I would
rather see us fork() to two developement groups to work seperate than have
a threaded and non-threaded effort running as threads in the same code
base.  (sorry could not resist the above). 

Could we just do stuff as is a little longer?  I support the direction,
not the timing.

Cliff

--
Cliff Skolnick, CIO      http://www.organic.com/     cliff@organic.com
Organic Online, Inc.       ** we're hiring **           (415) 278-5650
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759


Mime
View raw message