httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: MS VC++ with 2.0
Date Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:12:04 GMT

> Let me see if I have this right.  Please forgive me but I have never
> used Unix and am not putting Unix down like ASF members do here for
> _none_ Unix OSs and companies.
> Apache has (Unix as their main "language") developers writing and
> okaying _all_ CVS write access Windows code.

No.  Bill Stoddard does most Windows work, and he reviews most Windows
code.  William Rowe has been making a good name for himself, and he has
been reviewing Windows code.  Jeff Trawick has written some Windows code,
he seems to be a Unix and Windows developer.  I used to write some Windows
code, but most of it has been replaced by real windows developers code.

> Apache has (Unix as their main "language") developers porting Unix code
> to Windows "keeping" as much Unix type code as possible calling this
> code sharing.

No, with APR, most of the Windows code is actual Windows code.  We do very
little code sharing with respect to OS dependant code.

> Apache has (Unix as their main "language") developers doing away with
> make files for Windows (the default for Unix types which allows for more
> developers/variety) but say Windows developers have to use VC++ or no
> CVS write access.

Actually, it was the Windows developers who decided to remove the Windows
Makefiles, because they are modified too often.  It was decided, By
Windows developers, that it is easy to generate your own Makefiles, so
Windows developers should generate their own until we are out of alpha

> Apache has (Unix as their main "language") developers now saying they
> do not want to upgrade to a better product VC++ 6.0 so Windows
> developers have to use old VC++5.0  "ways" and of course you cannot get
> VC++ 5 there by limiting the number of Windows developers.

Again, take a look at who said they didn't want to upgrade.  Bill Rowe,
Jeff Trawick.  The only Unix developer in the discussion was me, and I
wanted to upgrade.  :-)  Bill also said he would be providing a perl
script so that ANY Windows developer could modify dsp's and still
contribute code back.

> Apache has (Unix as their main "language") developers saying Windows
> must use the C run time as Unix does on Win32.

No, please look at APR.  This was a restriction on Apache 1.3, because we
weren't using a portable run-time, this problem has been solved with 2.0.

> Apache has (Unix as their main "language") developers insisting that
> ANSI must be used just like Unix on a UNICODE computer.

We are working to support Unicode.  There are people with ideas for how to
do this well, but it will take time to get there.

> Apache has (Unix as their main "language") developers saying Windows
> Apache must be "console and have one/more processes" just like Unix.

No.  Check out Comanche, it is a gui for Apache.  As far as one/more
processes, this is for redundancy.  Apache 1.3 has two processes, one that
is multi-threaded, that actually serves the requests, and the other to
monitor the first one.  The second process doesn't do anything, except
watch the first, when the first process goes down, the second restarts
it.  Apache on Windows has always been essentially a single process

> I could go on and on but..... 
> So how can a Windows programmer contribute here and still remain
> "respectful" of themselves without fighting the OS wars and fighting the
> Unix programming way, when Apache has (Unix as their main
> "language") developers also saying most of the negative put downs?

We don't tend to "put down" Windows developers here.  Bill Rowe has been
accepted as a Windows developer with open arms.  :-)  He had to learn to
contribute smaller patches, but Bill does that now, and he is making a
very good name for himself.

> I guess I too, have to also leave. Nothing I write could be used
> following the above principles. I just can't see, as a Windows person,
> how I can help, but I wanted too.  Sorry.

Just contribute code, and be involved in the discussions.  We are trying
to be as inviting as we can be.  If there is something we can do better,
please let us know.


Ryan Bloom               
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131

View raw message