httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: future plans
Date Thu, 05 Feb 1998 19:46:17 GMT
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