httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@apache.org
Subject Re: Direction was Re: mod_custom_log exits too late?
Date Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:41:11 GMT

> and as far as apache2 being stable... I don't think it is. The code might
> serve pages, but people are voting with their feet, and so far only 6000
> feet are saying that it is.

I am going to ask a rather harsh question.  Why do people think that
anybody would upgrade to 2.0?  I tried to convince some people a while ago
that 2.0 wasn't going to have a fast adoption rate.  My reasoning?  It
doesn't solve a real-world problem.  The reason for Apache 2.0 was simple
enough, a company wanted to speed up Apache on their version of Unix,
because it didn't handle the pre-forking model well.  However, for most
sites, Apache 1.3 does just work.

There are three types of people who really need Apache 2.0.

1) Incredibly large sites that need to serve a huge number of users.  This
is a VERY small set of users, especially since most sites aren't hung up
on what their web server can do, but rather how quickly their CGI or
servlet can generate pages.

2) Sites that would rather spend money on a few large machines rather than
a lot of small machines.  The world is moving to disposable server
machines.  In that model, you buy a lot of small boxes, and don't worry
about the speed of the software.  The reason for this migration, is that
disposable hardware is cheaper, and it has a lower cost when 1 machine
dies.

3) Developers.  Apache 2.0 is a lot more modular, and IMHO, is a nicer
platform to develop on.

This is VERY different from Apache 1.3, which solves some real problems
with the previous version of Apache.  Add to that, the threaded models of
Apache 2.0 doesn't work with some of the most popular Apache 1.3 modules.

As for the argument that people don't like having to re-compile your
modules whenever we release a new version of the server, I propose a few
things.  First of all, how often have you had to modify your module to
make it work?  Is it that we are changing APIs that you use, or that we
are bumping the MMN?  If it is the former, then I don't have a solution,
but for the later I do.

If more modules would use the Apache build system to do builds, this
problem wouldn't exist.  We created the build system to allow modules to
add their own config.m4 files.  If you use CVS to checkout Apache 2.0, you
can rely on CVS to merge the m4 files for you.  This means that as a part
of building the new version of Apache, your modules will also be built.

I realize that my thoughts on Apache 2.0 adoption rates will not be
popular, but I have not come up with a compelling reason for people to
upgrade yet.  Without a compelling reason, the only people that you are
going to get right now are early adopters.  Others will come in time, but
you need to be patient.  Rasmus is convinced that PerChild is the
compelling reason, I am not as convinced as he is, but I am willing to
consider it.  What other compelling reasons do you see?  Why should people
upgrade?  And, I would ask that you come at this from a users point of
view, not a module authors point of view.

Ryan



Mime
View raw message