httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: The way forward: 1.3.7/1.4.0/2.0/2.1/hybrid/mpm/...
Date Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:40:39 GMT
I'd say the only "plan" we can have for 2.0 is to see what developers feel
like working on. 

At this moment, apache-apr/pthread doesn't offer any more features than
apache-2.0/mpm ... manoj merged his code and mine.  So those "parallel" 
efforts can in fact be parallel on the same tree.

I've had a lot of developers approach me offlist saying they're interested
in mpm.  More than just group members... the problem at the moment is
getting them convenient access to the mpm code.  I'm also going to great
effort to tell people what I'm doing -- and to solicit their help...

So you can call 2.0 whatever you want... but if most people feel like
developing on mpm, then why beat around the bush?

And if having apache-2.0/mpm in the source tree is a trouble for you, then
might I suggest one more step in the release process: 

cvs checkout apache-2.0
cd apache-2.0
rm -r mpm             # add this step

If you want, move it to another repository.  It makes little difference to
me -- my efforts are going into mpm... because I'm tired of people using
apache in benchmarks and then moaning when it doesn't kick ass.  I don't
think manoj/ryan's code is going to catch up with the leaders; nor do I
think it makes any huge improvements over apache-1.3 as it stands.  mpm's
architecture is such that the old prefork model, plus manoj/ryan's code,
plus my new code, plus zach brown's sigwait stuff, plus a winnt specific
mpm, plus a win95 mpm, plus ... can all live together peacefully.

And you know, it does go hand-in-hand with APR.  At this point there's a
bunch of stuff from APR which could help mpm, such as replacing all the
subprocessing spawning code (mod_cgi, mod_include, piped logs,
mod_mime_magic, ...).  That work is the same regardless of whether you do
it for apache-apr/pthreads or if you do it for apache-2.0/mpm.  Except if
you do it with the mpm code then you'll save the mpm effort some time.  At
the moment the two trees are essentially the same in the HTTP core and in
the modules.

So I dunno, all I know is that I'm not sitting around waiting for a group
consensus on anything.  I'm writing code which I want, and which I'm
having fun writing.  I wasn't having fun waiting.  I'm also attempting to
please as many people as possible within the constraints that I don't get
paid for this, so if I'm not having fun then why should I do any of it? 

If all we wanted to release as the next version was a threaded apache, why
didn't we release my apache-nspr stuff 15 months ago?  It was as far from
being stable then as apache-apr/pthread is from being stable now.
apache-2.0/mpm is a little further from stability... but if you wanted to
force a quick release of it all that really differs from
apache-apr/pthread is the BUFF stuff.  And that can be made stable by just
reverting it to 1.3 code and I'll go off and do my async stuff for apache
2.1.

Dean



Mime
View raw message