httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Thread-unsafe libraries in httpd-2.0
Date Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:28:44 GMT
That's just crap.  I can say the same thing.  PHP is threadsafe, it's not
my responsibility that libxyz is not.  Any Apache 2.0 module running under
a threaded mpm linked against libxyz that contains non-threadsafe code is
going to have exactly the same problem unless the module sticks in
mutexes.

Right now in the PHP world we simply tell people that they should not
upgrade to Apache 2.0.  If everyone ends up doing that, then I am sorry to
say, but Apache 2.0 is dead and the current Netcraft statement is going to
be a recurring thing.

As a platform there are some cool possibilities with Apache 2.0 and I'd
like to see it do well, but as a module author, being told to piss off and
deal with the problem myself is not any way to encourage 3rd-party module
support for Apache 2.0.  In the end the users out there don't really give
a crap about which web server they use.  They just want something that
works.  Apache was always the web server that just worked.  I strongly
feel it is our job to help make sure that Apache remain the web server
that just works.  Like it or not, but the web server is the foundation for
all the projects under the ASF umbrella and if we fuck up Apache, every
sub-project will be hurt in the process.

-Rasmus


On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Greg Stein wrote:

> EXACTLY.
>
> Thanks, Justin.
>
> We are not trying to shirk our responsibilities or be lazy about this. But
> you can't say "my module is so popular that you must account for problems
> that I introduce into your environment."
>
> I'm fine with adding something to our document that says something along the
> lines of, "if you choose a threaded MPM such as FOO, BAR, or BAZ, then you
> need to ensure that the third-party modules you choose to use with the web
> server are thread-safe. Please contact your third-party modules' vendors for
> more information on their thread-safety."
>
> -g
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 10:09:27AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:40:06AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > > thttpd/Zeus/boa/Tux/khttpd for that.  All I am after is a simple very
> > > visible addition to the Apache 2 distribution which explains that the
> > > threaded mpms may not be suitable for serving up dynamic content due to
> > > the unknown thread safety of the libraries these dynamic solutions rely
> > > on.
> >
> > And, my point back to you is that should be part of the documentation
> > of the module NOT of httpd-2.0.  Making broad statements that will
> > confuse our users like "threaded MPMs may not be suitable for serving
> > up dynamic content" is a ridiculously overbroad and inaccurate
> > statement.
> >
> > A better statement may be: "Some PHP or Perl modules may not
> > interact well with a threaded MPM in httpd-2.0.  Caution is urged
> > when using a threaded MPM."  To me, that totally belongs in the
> > PHP or Perl documentation.  That is a limitation of PHP and mod_perl
> > not of httpd-2.0.
> >
> > That statement doesn't hold for a mod_jk2 (or whatever the latest
> > httpd-2.0 Tomcat module is).  It totally depends on how the 3rd
> > party module is architected not on the architecture of the web
> > server itself.  -- justin
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
>


Mime
View raw message