Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <008a01c3ac8d$0c786990$2000000a@namelessone>
From: "Kyle Hamilton" <williamhamilton@sbcglobal.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
References: <20031116091223.GA21639@netspace.org>
 <3FB7AFAE.5000509@attglobal.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0311161105390.2620@thinkpad.lerdorf.com>
 <3FB7D273.3020809@sharp.fm> <003d01c3ac7c$9c8f3920$0100a8c0@hugues>
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:00:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I agree with Matt that Apache2 needs to be rdy for IIS but we need to make a
choice here between 1.3-1.4 and 2....
-Kyle Hamilton
www.kylehamilton.net
www.kylehamilton.com
559-593-1210
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthieu Estrade" <apache@moresecurity.org>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3


> Hi,
>
> I understand many people still are with 1.3 and don't want to change
because
> it's stable.
> But Coding modules with 1.3 is definitively not easy and require many time
> core patch.
>
> Apache 2.0 was design to give many really good features like threaded mpm,
> filters etc...
> When you look others web server, you can see Apache 2.0 is a good response
> to IIS 6, but is still unstable.
> Did you see all performances the others web server give ? did you see all
> new features provided by all new web server ?
> Only Apache 2.0 is able to offer the same services. No mem_cache in apache
> 1.3, No filters, noway to change output data without patching the core.
> When you compare actual fashion which is to offer webserver with a coding
> api to make dynamic website etc, i think Apache 2.0 is the solution, and
> more, maybe include directly into it mod_php and mod_perl.
>
> Apache 1.3 is still used and really stable, yes, but needs are changing
more
> and more and i think it's time to do more and more effort on Apache 2.0 to
> make it stable, powerfull, and easy to use. It's my humble option :)
>
> Regards,
> Matthieu
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Graham Leggett" <minfrin@sharp.fm>
> To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
> Cc: <trawick@attglobal.net>
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 8:39 PM
> Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3
>
>
> > Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >
> > > I also work for a large company with plenty of talented developers and
> > > thousands of production Apache-1.3 servers along with hundreds of
custom
> > > Apache-1.3 modules.  It will be years before I can even consider
> Apache2,
> > > given the architecture and API differences between the two.  If
> something
> > > could be done in an Apache-1.4 and 2.1/2.2 to help bridge the gap
> perhaps
> > > one day Apache2 will be an option, but today it is simply too big a
gap
> to
> > > jump and I am pretty sure the bulk of the Apache community is in the
> same
> > > boat.
> >
> > I think the key thing is "bugfixes" compared to "features" and
> > "architecture changes".
> >
> > I am +1 on seeing bugfixes go into v1.3 - people are using it, and if it
> > can work better, so be it. But to actively encourage people to add
> > features or architecture changes to v1.3, that simply turns v1.3 into
> > "something else no longer compatible with v1.3", which we already have:
> > v2.0.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Graham
> > --
>
>