httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From david reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: 3.0 - Introduction
Date Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:37:55 GMT
Paul Querna wrote:
> I believe the httpd project is ready for a push towards the next major
> version.
> 
> I believe everyone involved has learned many things from 2.x.  I wasn't
> here for all of the early 2.x development, so it is very easy to say I
> am naive in the scope of something like pushing for 3.0.
> 
> Today, I view the following as largely unsolvable problems with the 2.x
> architecture:
> 
> - Async IO will not work in the core without committing more evil hacks,
> that will make the code harder to understand and follow.
> 
> - Async IO will not work correctly with filters today.
> 
> - The module API exposes too many internals of how client IO is done to
> make small incremental changes.
> 
> - The HTTP protocol is still married to the core, and there has been
> very little progress in separating it out.
> 
> - Performance for many metrics will never be fully on par to async or
> hybrid async/threaded based servers like lighttpd.
> 
> - The configuration subsystem does not enable runtime changes, or the
> ability to easily programmatically extend it.
> 
> Could we try to address these issues and more with more constrained
> changes?  Very likely.
> 
> Do I think it would be as fun for everyone involved? Nope.
> 
> I don't believe that a focus on 3.0 will replace 2.x overnight, just
> like 2.x has taken many years to replace 1.3.x on new installs.  I
> personally don't view this as a major problem; With time, and if the
> project is truly better, users will migrate.  I do think we need a
> better strategy for handling dynamic content generators, and things that
>  are not thread safe.
> 
> I personally believe the push for 3.0 needs to be focused on how to
> create a positive scratch your own itch for most of the developer. So,
> in that spirit, what bothers everyone else about 2.x?

While I appreciate the work that has been done on our auth model, it's
still a nightmare and not as flexible as we should have. I'd like to see
us fully support group auth and allowing "layered" approaches to auth.


-- 
david

http://feathercast.org/

Mime
View raw message