httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Robb <sr...@wisewire.com>
Subject RE: future plans
Date Thu, 05 Feb 1998 21:04:44 GMT
> So, I'd support 2.0 (or 1.4) being threads+I/O, and 3.0 (or 2.0) being
> C++ and radical API redesign.

I'm not a voting member or anything, but... I like this, particularly
the
move to C++ and the API redesign.  Apache seems particularly well
suited to a move to C++, since so much effort has already gone into
designing various abstractions (modules, differences in so support,
shared memory, multithreading, synchronization...)

C++ has it's own perils and pitfalls - Dean pointed out a couple of
good ones - but they can be avoided with some effort, just as various
problems in C (or any other language) can be avoided or mimimized
by adpoting a particular coding style.

So the only real issue I see with 2.0 moving to C++ is support for
legacy systems that lack a C++ compiler, or have a non-conforming
implementation.  Is this a large enough segment of the user population
that a switch to C++ would leave a number of folks in the dust using
version 1.3?

- Samrobb (srobb@wisewire.com)
- WiseWire Corporation - The Content Agent Company
- http://www.wisewire.com
- http://www.lycos.com/webguides/webguides.html

The box said 'Requires Windows 95, or better.' So I bought a Macintosh.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ben Laurie [SMTP:ben@algroup.co.uk]
> Sent:	Thursday, February 05, 1998 2:46 PM
> To:	new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject:	Re: future plans
> 
> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > 
> > At 08:01 AM 2/3/98 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > >To me, it's looking like there is still a lot we could do with
> 1.3.0.
> > 
> > Indeed.
> > 
> > >  1. We stop development on 1.3 in order to release 1.3.0.
> > >     We focus on 2.0.
> > 
> > I think the problems we've all had regarding 2.0 development have
> been
> > around having much larger plans than any of us can reasonably do in
> a given
> > amount of time.
> > 
> > What if we said that the only major advances we *needed* to have in
> 2.0 was
> > multithreading.  A new API would be nice (we can get partway there
> with
> > some extra phases), as well layered IO or a new config language, but
> > ultimately the most pressing issue in apache compared to other
> servers is
> > the multithreading issue.  The hard part will be coming up with a
> portable
> > threading interface, something which runs in front of pthreads, or
> native
> > threads, or even a multi-process emulation of threading.  The core
> code
> > should be mostly thread safe particularly since the NT port is
> > multithreaded anyways.
> > 
> > Since threading is pretty closely tied with IO it might make sense
> to also
> > do the IO stuff we've talked about at the same time... but I really
> do see
> > everyone's plans for 2.0 being much larger than I think any of us
> will be
> > able to chew anytime soon.
> > 
> > If someone comes up with a proposed threading interface spec, and
> backs it
> > with pthreads, that'll get us a huge chunk of the way there; other
> > threading models can be implemented as 2.0 rolls through alpha.  The
> basic
> > idea, though, is to lower our aims for what 2.0 will include.
> > 
> > comments?
> 
> This makes a lot of sense to me. Threading + I/O is what we really
> need,
> though a radical API redesign wouldn't be such a bad thing.
> 
> Unfortunately, I find it hard to get motivated about API redesign
> since
> this group consistently rejects the only _sensible_ way forward (i.e.
> C++), on grounds that are becoming increasingly shaky. I do sympathize
> with those who don't yet know C++ well (or at all) but hell, guys,
> you've got to start somewhere, right?
> 
> Now that STL and friends are with us, and templates are more-or-less
> universally supported, the benefits of C++ are becoming so vast they
> are
> hard to ignore. Apache is now the _only_ program I spend any
> significant
> amount of time on that is still in C. And for those who still want a C
> API, I really can't see that there's a problem (though it is likely to
> be rather clunky in comparison to a C++ one).
> 
> So, I'd support 2.0 (or 1.4) being threads+I/O, and 3.0 (or 2.0) being
> C++ and radical API redesign.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
> Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
> and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
> A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
> London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache

Mime
View raw message