httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0 STATUS
Date Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:46:09 GMT
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> 
> Any my threading proposal was carefully constructed to maintain the
> current process model.  Not just for legacy systems, but also because
> folks just won't be able to use threads if they, for example, link with a
> database library.  Last I checked ndbm/db/gdbm aren't thread safe.  Kind
> of limits what you can do with a threaded apache.  It'll make a hot proxy,
> and a hot static content server.  And it'll do some dynamic content,
> presumably mod_perl eventually.  But it's not going to talk well with
> databases... 

Well, that's easy to fix.  We just need an Apache process model
concept where we can have a pool of processes backing up a pool of
threads, with the idea that for some "typical" server you will only
need a few of the backends for things which can't be done in threads
for whatever reasons.  Gee, lets invent LWPs all over.

I am half serious here.

> 
> But the way I would prefer we approach this stuff is that as long as it's
> possible, and someone is supporting it, that's fine with me.  But I'm
> personally not interested in maintaining all the corner-case systems --
> I'm quite content maintaining linux, and trying not to break freebsd and
> solaris.  There are others here who maintain freebsd, solaris, sunos, hpux
> (occasionally), aix, win32, and a few more I'm sure. 

My idea is that, while portability is an issue in general and doing
bad things is to be avoided, 2.0 will be based on the idea that it
has to work where it can be tested and if we lose half the obscure 
platforms until someone makes them work (which shouldn't be too hard, 
since I don't envision anything that won't run on the most basic
system) then so be it.  Not desirable, but that's life.


Mime
View raw message