httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2002 19:52:13 GMT
From: <coar@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 7:21 AM


> coar        02/02/01 05:21:34
> 
>   Modified:    .        STATUS
>   @@ -135,7 +142,7 @@
>          on dev@apr:
>            Message-ID: <20020111115006.K1529@clove.org>
>           Vote: Is a non-portable perchild going to hold up a GA release?
>   -        Yes:
>   +        Yes: Ken
>             No: Aaron, Justin, trawick

I have to strongly object to this Ken's assertion.  This could be a feature 
of a minor bump.  perchild is certainly a terrific feature.  However, we
have (in no particular order);

  * portability and great optimization (for non-unix) via APR

  * threaded MPM

  * filters

  * new modules (many experimental)

  * better hooks and APIs for module authors.

So we will hold up GA for a new feature [perchild]?  "But they want it" cannot 
be the basis for GA.  Heck, folks want ASP ... that doesn't mean we drop it all
until this feature is offered by someone.

Perchild is a great example of what MPMs were designed for!!!  But this is
_not_ a showstopper to put Apache2.0 in administrators' hands.




Mime
View raw message