httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Long <ml...@infoave.net>
Subject Re: Building and Linking 3rd Party Modules within Apache 2.0 Source
Date Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:56:39 GMT
Keep in mind too that DSO uses more memory, takes longer to start up, and 
on Tru64 UNIX it's buggy as hell (and I seriously doubt anyone in this 
group is going to fix that either).  That's why I compile everything 
statically.

I know I'm a new comer to this group, but I've been using apache for at 
least 4 years on upwards of 50 servers, so I can relate from the user 
experience.

--On Wednesday, October 18, 2000 5:17 PM -0700 Rasmus Lerdorf 
<rasmus@apache.org> wrote:

> No, we are just telling them to install autoconf, that's all.
>
> -Rasmus
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Except for the fact that in one fell-swoop we're dropping backwards
>> compatibility for platforms that worked just fine with 1.3 and
>> now won't for 2.0, something we've avoided from day one. Not
>> only that, we are saying, to the person who by need or desire
>> doesn't want to implement DSOs, "too bad Charlie." And it's
>> not because of anything inherent in Apache, but in the build
>> process we're using.
>>
>> Hopefully at ApacheCon we'll be able to work something out. What
>> we'll need is some sort of config.ap file that ./configure can
>> parse internally... :/
>>
>> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> >
>> > > > I suppose it would be possible to add some gear to the top-level
>> > > > configure script to allow you to do something similar to an
>> > > > --activate-module which would end up pulling in a .a.  But again,
>> > > > I think third-party static modules should be the exception rather
>> > > > than the norm moving forwards.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > My only concerns are (1) those platforms that lack DSO support
>> > > and (2) those whose DSO support is super crappy. Sometimes people
>> > > just prefer being able to add in modules statically.
>> > >
>> > > You know, that would be a interesting survey.
>> >
>> > Yes, but like I said, these are the exceptions.  And asking these
>> > folks to install autoconf/automake to get around the fact that their
>> > OS sucks should not be that much of an issue.
>> >
>> > -Rasmus
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>



Michael Long
Senior Systems Analyst
Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC

Mime
View raw message