httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Stoddard <>
Subject Re: story posted
Date Thu, 06 Feb 2003 18:22:28 GMT
Aaron Bannert wrote:

>>>     Now, we could solve both problems by using a handler and
>>>     the prefork MPM.  But then, Apache 2.0+PHP is basically
>>>     Apache 1.3+PHP with a few extra modules thrown in.  That's
>>>     how it appears to the end-user at least.
>> I don't buy that argument.  Are you saying that if Apache 1.4 had been
>> released with a couple extra modules but no threading or filters, then 
>> PHP
>> would have stuck with 1.3 because it works "well enough"?  No, I hope PHP
>> would have updated to 1.4 to take advantage of the current development
>> efforts.  Those development efforts include not just a couple new modules
>> (major ones like mod_ssl, mod_dav, mod_deflate, mod_auth_ldap, etc), but
>> lots and lots of other enhancements (IPv6, PCRE, improved negotiation,
>> better documentation, better non-unix support, many bug fixes, etc).
>> So why not just do a handler-based PHP for 2.0, and work on other 
>> problems
>> in the future.  This is a silly family quarel that is making everyone 
>> look
>> bad.
> There is no such thing anymore as a handler in Apache 2.0, am I correct?
> Aren't the handler-like hooks that try to behave the same was as they did
> in 1.3 just implemented over output filters?
> -aaron

This explains my earlier observation re "if the only tool you have 
(amendment: or think you have) is a hammer, every problem looks like a 
nail" :-)

Seriously, handlers exist in 2.0 (see modules/generators) and the APIs 
are there to read POST'ed data.  I would think it's not too terribly 
difficult to port 1.3 mod_php to 2.0 using the exact same handler model.

Of course you still won't be able to embed php scripts in SSI tags (w/o 
doing unnatural things) but who really cares?


View raw message