httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steffen" <i...@apachelounge.com>
Subject Re: Directions for Win32 binary httpd
Date Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:15:24 GMT
>From a build standpoint I agree.

But VC++ 2005 has improvements in Performance, MemoryManagement etc.
The optimizer seems  to improve the performance quite significantly.

Contrary to what Microsoft would like, you can built the server with the
needed DLLs statically so there is nothing to ship and nothing to install.
The Sambar Server( www.sambar.com ) uses this approach.


Steffen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Directions for Win32 binary httpd


> Ok, I've come to a conclusion; for the coming release, only msvcrt.dll
> builds under Visual C++ 6.0 make sense as our binary distribution.
>
> I'm not suggesting we dismiss the potential win of supporting our Studio
> 2005 compiler users(!)  But let's quickly compare...
>
>  . binary users generally aren't building modules, they need to plug into
>    widely distributed binary components.
>
>  . source users generally can build anything from source, if they need to.
>    If they want to interface several components, they can build our source
>    tarball with any compiler they like, including the 1 year free license
>    of Studio 2005.
>
>  . it's pretty trivial to build/install httpd with one of several pretty
>    minimal unix toolchains available.
>
> It seems that most of the communites are still in VC 6.  Remember the key
> reason we keep using it, MS dropped support for exporting makefiles.  With
> no makefiles, you are roped into supporting only version x or newer Studio
> products.  With .dsp/.dsw solutions, we can export makefiles on the old
> reliable VC 6, and users can load/convert these into Studio 2000/03/05.
>
> So I'll move ahead with all the msi tweaks required for our changed files,
> and we can reevaluate the state of things 6 mos or a year from now when we
> are almost ready to ship Apache X :)
>
> That's my conclusion, I'm still more than happy to hear out dissenting
> opinions.  Speak up quick, though, planning to have a package up in
> /dev/dist
> by Sunday night for review, and push it out sometime early next week.
>
> Bill
>
>


Mime
View raw message