Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606)
In-Reply-To: <3FB92002.3070508@wstoddard.com>
References: <sfb90e6b.001@mail3.aarboard.ch>
 <BAY4-DAV137quN7IdEQ00007d25@hotmail.com>
 <20031117182423.GA12038@castlerea.stdlib.net.>
 <3FB9141B.8010304@wstoddard.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0311171048011.1798@thinkpad.lerdorf.com>
 <3FB92002.3070508@wstoddard.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <4983CC24-193A-11D8-8BFB-000393D76AB8@jagunet.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com>
Subject: Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:11:53 -0500
To: dev@httpd.apache.org


On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:22 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> 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)

Most people with those big investments are using at least *some* 3rd 
party
modules. Having a 1.4 that is not binary compatible with 1.3
means that those 3rd party modules will need to be (at least)
re-compiled for 1.4. So they will need to worry about 1.3,
1.4 and 2.0 (and potentially 2.2)... That's an *awful* lot
to have people keep track of. I don't see companies out
there wanting to do that... they will maintain their 1.3
modules for awhile, and their 2.x ones, because it *is*
the next gen, but I think they would avoid 1.4 almost
totally.

Having 1.4 not be binary compatible with 1.3 severely limits its
usefulness to those exact people that it's supposed to be
helping.