Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 75181 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2003 16:30:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 75133 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 16:30:53 -0000 Message-ID: <3E413C35.20700@wstoddard.com> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:30:45 -0500 From: Bill Stoddard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: story posted References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >>You can also see text in our bug database from a prominent PHP developer >>saying that the filter API needs to be redone from scratch (my >>paraphrase). For the enthusiastic PHP users, such comments carry a lot >>of weight and imply that PHP isn't production ready with 2.0 not because >> nobody has made it a high priority to make PHP production ready but >>instead because there is something flawed about Apache 2.0. > > > Well, I stand by that. The filter API is a bloody mess. Something which > should be simple and elegant has turned into this amazingly complex tangle > of code that is nearly impossible to figure out. > > -Rasmus > I don't agree that "the filter API is a blooody mess", however I am sympathetic to the emotion your expressing. Is 2.0 complex? yes. Does it have a coherent design? IMHO, yes. Is it 'overengineered'? probably so. My criticsm of the filter API is that the design tries to solve too many problems and the resulting implementation is so complex that it creates an unnecessarily high entry barrier for folks interested in doing 2.0 module development. Apache httpd is a protocol engine that should provide useful services to folks building applications on top of it. The value is in the applications that run on top of httpd, not httpd itself. IMHO, application module developers are required to make an unnecessarily large investment (in time and effort) in becoming 2.0 experts before they can get their applications running. PHP is horribly complex, but PHP is where the value comes from so there is more incentive for folks to become masters of PHP. The same is not true of httpd 2.0. IMHO, a large part of our continuing 2.0 development effort should be in simplifying our current implementation while keeping the most important services we provide to app developers. Bill