httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Randy Terbush" <ra...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: am I dreaming?
Date Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:52:30 GMT


> >After a more diligent scanning I noticed that the
> >MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR was changed because METHODS and M_INVALID
> >were redefined.  Maybe these changes were important bug
> fixes but they
> >seem to just be cosmetic to me, in which case I feel like
> they could
> >have been deferred to a later Apache version.
>
> They were not cosmetic.
>
> >Is backwards compatibility of precompiled DSO modules not something
> >that Apache aims to maintain?
>
> No.  The Apache API is source-based.  To get binary
> backwards compatibility
> you need to add a layer of indirection, like fastcgi or a
> servlet engine,
> that would buffer third-party modules from core changes.
>
> Given the choice between forward progress or maintaining
> compatibility
> with old binaries, we choose forward progress.  Our releases are not
> frequent enough to restrict those changes to the second
> version number.
>
> ....Roy
>

Roy,

I must disagree and hope that the goal of the group is different than
you describe.

If our goal is to see that Apache is the most widely used platform for
HTTP services, being mindful of changes that affect binary
compatibility issues for binary module vendors is important. It is
these 3rd party add-ons that make Apache a more desireable and
competitive option for businesses, when choosing between an MS or
Netscape solution and Apache.

It is also important that the binary module vendors who are screaming
about this problem offer a solution back to this project instead of
making demands that it be changed.

-Randy


Mime
View raw message