httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Httpd 3.0 or something else
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:00:32 GMT
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:59, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman
<buanzo@buanzo.com.ar> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> Apache remains the broad solution, but for narrow requirements, people
>> will select something that is easier to handle for their particular
>> situation.
>>
>> I wouldn't say "wrong", but more along the lines of "not as well-suited"
>
> I partially agree, but we have to take into account that some of those httpd's, like
lighttpd, are
> replacing Apache plain and simple. Don't get me wrong. I love Apache. I've written tons
of articles
> about it since the very early days. And I haven't released any mod_openpgp code for any
other thing
> other than Apache for a reason: i love it.

Yeah... I think we're in agreement. I'm just trying to say those
aren't necessarily *better* than Apache, but that they are
*better-suited* to their admin's scenarios. As the swiss army knife of
web servers, Apache is very heavy in the pocket. In many scenarios,
one little blade is all you need, and it is much easier to use and
maintain.

I'm not sure that is a solvable problem for us, unfortunately. We
would need a drastic overhaul of how we approach configuration. (not
to mention setup/building and module loading/handling)  In essence, I
think the project has concentrated on backwards-compat rather than an
overhaul for usability.

Cheers,
-g

Mime
View raw message