httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: MPMs and Future Directions
Date Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:53:25 GMT
At 01:25 AM 3/28/2003, Spinka, Kristofer wrote:
>  I realize that some, or all, of this may have been addressed time and
>time again, but I would like to query the current contributors and
>direction setters at large and present.  Yes, this is only one
>micro-facet of industry problems, but it is also one which is very
>important at present.  I welcome any comments and/or corrections.
>
>1. I have noticed that many MPMs attempt to be portable.  While this is
>a convenience is it done at the expense of performance?

The most portable will be the most used MPM, and therefore the most
bug-free.  Examples are prefork and worker.

Less portable but high demand include winnt (required for Windows) and
the perchild.  Others are on the drawing board.

>Are there more modern MPMs in the works?  What's the status of 
>"The Async Apache Server implemented in terms of APR"?

Realize that an Async server, compared to IIS isn't happening anytime
soon.  However, we already have code on the drawing boards that 
implements the pre-, intra- and post-connection phases in async.
The problem is that once the *request* goes async, we invalidate all
of the existing handlers and other plug-in modules.  That won't happen
for a while yet.

It's being implemented in terms of MPMs - nobody is ready to try to
plug in all the different flavors of async support into APR just yet.

I wouldn't be surprised if the group announces a semi-Async MPM
beyond Win32 for the Apache 2.2 release.  But I expect them to be
pretty platform-specific for a while, yet.  It will probably be easier
to develop them independently of APR, and then try to capture that
greatest common denominator as an APR api.

>3. Platform spotlights.  [...] My offhand list, in no particular order, 
>is Solaris, Linux, {Free,Net}BSD, and Windows.

Sounds like the list we already pay the most attention to.  Simple
fact: if no developers run the OS - it's features aren't exploited and
it isn't as well tested.  So figure developers OS's roughly equal the
'real world', so this has never been an issue.

None the less, OS2, Netware, BeOS, HP/UX, TPF and other ports 
persist in being rather well supported.  Go figure :-)

>6. Documentation.

Apparently you are entirely unaware of the docs@httpd.apache.org team,
and the fact that Apache's documentation is generally regarded as one
of the better sets of open source docs?

  http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/

The other points seemed to be opinion or commentary, as opposed
to soliciting a response.  I hope I answered your key questions.

Bill



Mime
View raw message