httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Stoddard <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:22:42 GMT
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> 
>>Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support)
with all the Windows 
>>specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with
Apache 1.3 modules would 
>>probably see rapid uptake. I can't say that thrills me but it's probably true...
> 
> 
> Not sure why providing useful software wouldn't thrill you.
Don't read too much into that comment. 1.3 is just so damn crufty in many respects as compared
to 2.0 that it 
offends my senses. But 1.3 has some significant strengths in its favor. 2.0.recent is pretty
darn stable (at 
least with the threaded MPM) and is backward compatable with binaries compiled with releases
as early as 
2.0.42. But the filter API in 2.0 is just horribly complex (IMHO) and takes a -lot- of effort
to master.

Speculation.

In this economic environment (and perhaps this will turn out to be generally true from now
on), companies are 
not making investments in IT unless they can get a proven and almost immediate return on that
investment. 
Making the jump to Apache 2.0 -can- be a big investment (depending on how many custom/third
party modules you 
use) and that investment will not be made unless 2.0 enables some fundamental new business
processes not 
possible with 1.3. I would venture that most of those kinds of investments are being made
in Java, .Net or PHP 
application environments. Being able to eliminate 1 machine in 3 due to scalability improvements
in 2.0 
probably won't be a sufficient return on investment for most folks. A really kick-ass load
balancing/active 
fail-over feature in mod_proxy might generate some interest in 2.0 deployed in the DMZ (features
like this are 
significantly easier to implement in threaded webservers).

> I think the
> point here is that someone is eventually going to do this.  Would be nicer
> to have it under our control than have it leave the ASF.

You probably have a much better read on this than most of the folks here. I'd like to believe
that ipv6, 
threading and 64 bit support is the catalyst that will get many folks over to 2.0. Dunno tho...

> 
> -Rasmus

Bill



Mime
View raw message