Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 25839 invoked by uid 500); 2 May 2000 16:12:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 25828 invoked from network); 2 May 2000 16:12:24 -0000 Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:12:21 -0700 (PDT) From: dean gaudet To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: RE: BUFF, IOL, Chunking, and Unicode in 2.0 (long) In-Reply-To: <000301bfb449$90b5f780$345985d0@corecomm.net> Message-ID: X-comment: visit http://arctic.org/~dean/legal for information regarding copyright and disclaimer. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, 2 May 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > A few have argued recently that there is little point in releasing a > 2.0 revision, since it's a glorified 1.3.x without the truly application > independent APR. I have to agree that APR, to date, is rather cobbled > together pieces of Apache. Movement underway makes me believe this will > change over the course of the 2.0 release. > > On the server side, for admins, we really don't have what would appear > to be a 'later and greater' set of features. yeah it's pretty amazing that it's taken us 2+ years to get to this "sad" state isn't it? it's pretty pathetic that a threaded apache on unix has been delayed by such silly things as compatibility on NT. that said, if you or anyone else says that 2.0 should wait for "LOTS MORE REALLY GREAT FEATURES" then you're doing us all a disservice. there's nothing at all wrong with 2.0 being 1.3 plus threads. -dean