httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jess M. Holle" <je...@ptc.com>
Subject Re: story posted
Date Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:17:24 GMT
Graham Leggett wrote:

> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> Some questions for thought: if we start banging out versions right 
>> and left,
>> then will people actually upgrade? Are we doomed to live with 1.3 
>> forever?
>> Or do we have to stick with today's architecture to support binary
>> compatibility for N years?
>
>
> I think OS distributions will play a large role in this. When the 
> Solaris / Redhat / Suse / IBM / Whoever people start shipping v2.0 
> with their OS'es (which has already started happening in the case of 
> redhat) adoption will be quite quick.
>
> In addition, apache v2.0 comes with SSL + LDAP built in, where v1.3 
> did not - this will probably give people more reason to use it. 

Built in only to a point.  The standard distribution does not contain 
either of these.  What's more, you have to rebuild the core (or APR at 
least) and link these in to have either of these.

Sorry, but this hits a nerve -- with Apache 1.3 we had 2 major sets of 
potentially incompatible binaries - EAPI and non-EAPI.  With Apache 2.0 
we have 2 x 2 (=4), i.e. SSL and non-SSL enabled and LDAP and non-LDAP 
enabled and permutations thereof.

Is there any way we can stop linking LDAP and SSL into the core to use 
them, e.g. have mod_ssl be the only thing linking to OpenSSL and 
mod_ldap and/or mod_auth_ldap be the only modules linking to LDAP, i.e. 
so we can have one big mess of interchangeable binaries -- at least for 
a given MPM worker...  [I have to believe this will settle down to 
worker for UNIX and the Windows worker for Windows for the 90+% case for 
a while anyway.]

--
Jess Holle



Mime
View raw message