Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: Martin Kutschker <Martin.T.Kutschker@blackbox.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Direction was Re: mod_custom_log exits too late?
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:02:06 +0200 (METDST)
Organization: blackbox.net
Message-Id: <20020916.8926120@blackbox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:41:11 -0400 (EDT)
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: rbb@apache.org

> Add to that, the threaded models of Apache 2.0 doesn't work with some
> of the most popular Apache 1.3 modules.

So the question would how can this be amended. Is there any way to help the module owners to move on to a threaded module? BTW, there is also the problem that users must know what modules are thread safe. I have the feeling that documentation is not enough. A kind of flag set by the module authors indicating this might be a solution.

> 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.

Is this documented somewhere? I have never used CVS checkous but tar files. Hate to day it, but docs on 2.0 for module owners are... well, they certainly could be better.

> Rasmus is convinced that PerChild is the compelling reason, I am not as
> convinced as he is, but I am willing to consider it.

I think thta many ISPs that provide that provide some kind of access and/or custom CGIs will use PerChild. AT least I would.

> 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.

I liked the threading thing and the out-of-the-box ssl.

Masi