Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@lnd.com>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Subject: RE: Configuration Syntax for Apache (was XML etc.)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:54:19 -0600
Message-ID: <000401bf7807$b0644a10$345985d0@corecomm.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <38A9C36A.CC86A7EE@algroup.co.uk>
Importance: Normal

Jim, thanks for the summary, you hit the nail on the head.

> These pretty much boil down to:
>
>  1. I want a GUI

On XML et. al... I don't much care if it is the existing syntax, XML syntax,
or raw hex :->

When we start talking XML - I'm simply concerned that we don't end up with
the same obscufication as CSS.

The existing syntax is clean and simple.  If the alternate syntax is clean
and simple, we can keep both parsers (ok - I hear the groans already) and
offer a one line "XmlImport filespec" directive for httpd.conf.  If someone
wants to write it, go ahead and code it.  Then we find out the answer to the
statement ... if we build it they will come.

What we have GOT to get straight are the loads of questions on the
newsgroups about syntax.  Seems to me that admins simply don't read (even
inline comments).  If we give the existing config parser a comments block,
so that preceeding comments are <<<OPTIONALLY>>> sucked in with the
directives by the parser, anyone can have their clean syntax and comment
blocks too... we just need a dump (again with the preceeding comment lines
preserved).  Perhaps it's already hiding in there somewhere?

A BIG growth chuck in servers will be (already is?) the cable modem/AODI
homebody.  If we want to keep posting the numbers we have seen... Apache
needs to be shrinkwrapped to Windows.  However - if you want Apache to be
THE Un*x host, and are ready to give up on Windows - then we know where are
numbers are headed in two years.  (Five years down the road may be a 180`
turn to Linux for home users.  I'm not holding my breath either way.)

I really couldn't care less that the Windows 95/98 is based on CP/M -
NT/2000 is a 32 bit preemptive multitasking - multiprocessor enabled
architecure.  Yes - I too wish 95/98 would go away (it won't - there is
another consumer version in the pipe in spite of Windows 2000).  Yes - it's
insecure, it's a poor choice to advertise to the public, and fools will
continue to try to host on it anyway.  If not Apache, then with PWS or
another free product, they will be out there.

Is Linux better than Windows?  WHO CARES?  If we are going to take pride in
Apache - as demonstrated by the numbers - then we better be there for the
all of them.

Windowz and Uniqs flames get us nowhere.


>  2. I want Frontpage extensions

MS has no interest in assuring that the Frontpage extensions run on
Apache/NT, while cutting into PWS and IIS.  Rather than flaming the Apache
Foundation, perhaps slashdot should be asking MICROSOFT where the FP
extention documentation for Apache 1.3.11/Win is hiding.  Who's pulling the
cart here?

>  3. I want ASP

And MS will give us carte blanc to tie in the Scripting Host on Windows?
Again, who cares?  - Apache's #1 goal is cross platform compatibility - so
it's irrelevant.  Are we about to see Windows Scripting Host/GNU release?  I
doubt it.