httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jagunet.com>
Subject Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:10:37 GMT
On Nov 17, 2003, at 1:31 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:

> Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
>>> Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it 
>>> available
>>> for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add.
>> The KAME project has IPv6 patches for 1.3.* at
>> 	ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/
>> they work on KAME (ie *BSD) stacks but have issues on platforms 
>> without INET6_V6ONLY support (but just about work). linux.or.jp used 
>> to maintain an alternative patch with v6 support, but that's since 
>> gone.
>> The patches are all truly horrendous. APR has a much better model for
>> all of this.
>
> 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...
>

Once we break binary compatibility, and with the above definition of 1.4
I think that's a certainty, then I don't see the big "reason" for
a 1.4 over 2.0.

There's a big diff, IMO, between opening up development on 1.3
and trying to make 1.3 a 2.0-lite.


Mime
View raw message