Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 95215 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jan 2001 21:40:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 95185 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2001 21:40:48 -0000 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:39:15 +0000 (GMT) From: James Sutherland X-Sender: jas88@green.csi.cam.ac.uk To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Flame bait: Apache-2.0 on Unix is almost unusable. In-Reply-To: <20010125214310.A84045@deejai2.mch.fsc.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: James Sutherland X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Correction to subject: As of last night, CVS httpd-2.0 is unbuildable, never mind unusable :-) On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Martin Kraemer wrote: > A bit frustrating it is to me that so much time has been spent on > Apache 2.0, rearranging, writing, discussing, patching to and fro, > but the basic and most important problems have not been addressed > in quite a while. To me, that code is definitely NOT Beta quality. Agreed. (snip) > a) fatal protocol errors, leading to the browser hanging and waiting > forever. > b) extra header output, leading to a garbled "It works" page which shows > everyone at the first glance that this is ALPHA code. Alpha code? From the output, it sometimes looks like Alpha code running on x86! :-) (snip report about duplicated headers, which I've also mentioned before) Yep; I've seen two (DIFFERENT) headers at once, too; one 200 OK, followed by the whole set of headers, then another 200 OK, and SOME of those headers again - WTF?! (snip) Right now, 2.0 doesn't look ready for an alpha, let alone a beta. Is anyone looking at the broken header problem yet??? James.