httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Info on Multithreading and Apche for NT
Date Thu, 15 May 1997 16:44:33 GMT
Paul Sutton wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 15 May 1997, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> > The work I've done so far has been put into a package I'm calling
> > 'athreads'.  'a' can stand for 'apache' or 'abstract', which ever you 
> > like.  There's a Win32 layer in there and the package is not directly
> > tied to apache, I can tar it up soon if you'd like to try it out with
> > a simple NT app. 
> 
> Sounds interesting - can you drop a tar off somewhere?
> 
> At some point, all the OS specific code in Apache needs to be abstracted
> so that there is a common code base across all supported platforms (this
> is in the plan for 2.0, but experience in developing Apache for NT will
> clearly have an influence on the level of abstraction needed). Threads are
> one (important) area where we need an abstraction - not only to support
> threads on various platforms, but also to support the existing pre-forking
> model on platforms without thread support (or implement fake threads). 
> 
> There are also other areas where abstraction is needed, for example: file
> name processing (to handle c:\ stuff, etc), process forking/spawning
> (cgi), user/group info, etc etc. 
> 
> Of course, the immediate plan is to convert 1.2 to NT, before wholesale
> abstraction, but it would be nice to implement 1.2 using tools that can
> carry forward to 2.0. 
> 
> There are three OS's we can abstract for: 
> 
>   Unix
>   OS/2
>   Windows NT (95?)
> 
> (OS/2 is already supported in Apache, but by a fairly large number of
> #ifdef EMX sections. The abstract layer should be able to remove all
> these). 

Agreed. But the requirements for abstraction are currently poorly understood.
I'd rather have no abstraction than a bad fit. Which is why we should just
get it working well on NT first, then think about abstraction.

> 
> Is there a good reason for specifying NT only? Should we aim for Windows
> NT _and_ 95? (With, possibly, NT specific extensions such as services). 

It is certainly my aim to support 95 and NT. There is no reason that can't be
done, either. In fact, the version I've been playing with worked first time on
95.

I'm not suggesting anyone should run a serious webserver on 95, but it is very
handy for testing, content designers, etc.

> Is it worth bothering with abstraction for 1.2?

Certainly worth thinking about - not so sure about actually doing it though.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
London, England.          Apache-SSL author

Mime
View raw message