httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: Apache 2.0 beta STATUS
Date Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:00:33 GMT
From: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 1:12 AM

> This is a simple STATUS message for the beta.
> 1)  We are currently running the entire site on Apache 2.0 on
> port 8092.  I am talking to Brian about the steps required to move this to
> port 80.  I fully expect this to happen soon-ish, assuming we can prove
> that we are stable now.  The biggest stumbling block, is that Apache 2.0
> HEAD is not running on any known production server, and the last time we
> turned it on live on, we took the machine down.  That
> experience may take a little while for some people to get over.

We took down with an alpha release, not the beta.  Don't forget
that, and we expect our users to remember that as well.  It it critical
that we eat our own cooking... until we run head, we don't have a beta

> 2)  We have 1 patch that must be committed before we go beta.  That is the
> ap_r* performance patch.  There are two patches that have been submitted,
> and I asked for a vote to end tomorrow morning.  Unfortunately, nobody has
> voted for either patch at this point.  I am asking that people review
> these patches, and vote for one of them.  I had planned to commit one of
> the patches tomorrow afternoon.  I will not commit either patch until at
> least three people (other than Greg and I) vote for a patch.  Please
> review them and ask any questions you might have.

We have as many patches as it takes to make stable.  Yes, we
need to choose a patch for the ap_r* fns - I'm leaning twords the apr
implementation over the filter implementation, for the reason that we
have a more thorough bucket/brigade/buffering solution within apr that
isn't restricted to the apache solution.  If their is a technical flaw
with either patch, someone please point it out.

> 3)  That's it.  We are still in feature freeze, and I suspect that there
> are bugs on non-Unix platforms that still need to be worked out.  I don't
> believe that there are any more _features_ that MUST be committed before
> we go beta.

No doubt.  I closed a big hole in unix security just today.  I have the
following transition map that will be implemented, the first group prior
to beta:

  - backout apr_get_filename_case
  - implement simple finfo->fcase for unix, os2 [no, I don't know what I'm
      doing, I'll simply create the assuming case-sensitive patch]
  - implement finfo->fcase for win32 [simple, really]
  - replace FindFile in win32 canonical with the apr_stat ->fcase value.
  - pound the heck out of win32's allocations
  - fix the data symbols and pool problems of dav, if I can find them.

The changes above assure winnt can open any file name and utf8 names are
assured to be processed.  Before or after beta;

  - add apr_open_fileinfo [optimized under win32, someday under OS X and
      any other platform that can perform some transition magic], I'm
      accepting a better fn name to describe opening a file from an finfo.
  - allow apr_read/write on win32 files opened with APR_XTHREAD [this api
      only supports sendfile today.]
  - optimize the flags to apr_[l]stat/getfileinfo.
  - collapse multiple apr_stat's in the server today, and absorb most of
      the apr_canonical stuff as part of the apr_stat directory walk
      [hit the filesystem only once, not twice.]
  - make the canonical function do nothing more than right the string
      [fix slashes, colons, reject streams, etc] without hitting the
      filesystem at all. 
  - for win9x - add APR_CHR results based on file name (con, aux, nul etc)

That's my map, the first few items will be done Monday.

> I would really like to move this forward now.  It would be REALLY cool to
> get the beta out before the end of the month if that is at all
> possible.  I am willing to do whatever is necessary to make that happen.

If no one has thanked you in the last few weeks for being a total PITA,
well, thank you.  I'm far more impressed by what I've seen these last
few days than I have been in some time.  I'm more convinced by the hour
that this is -the- server design we want to throw into the world.  This
is the point in development that engineers most often say damn, we blew
it, it won't/doesn't ... I really don't have that feeling about where
we stand today.

View raw message