tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <aa...@ebuilt.com>
Subject Re: problem with mod_webapp
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:04:58 GMT
> Hmm, I wonder if we should do a T&R with APR to give a "release"
> that is separate from httpd-2.0.  I don't see any reason why we 
> couldn't do this.  I just have no clue how to do the T&R.  My
> understanding is that anyone with commit privs can do that.
> I'll look into it though.
> 
> BUT, I think that the precedent with the APR-using projects is to
> require a source checkout.  Subversion and httpd-2.0 both require 
> the current CVS version of APR.  This allows APR to not have to 
> maintain backward compatibility with "previous" releases (not
> that we would anyway).

I think the only reason that works for httpd-2.0 and subversion is that
they are heavily involved in APR development. We can't very well expect
every project to be in that same boat. I like your first suggestion much
better (tag-and-roll to get [semi]stable versions of APR pushed out, then
projects that have problems can submit patches, etc...)

> > >And, I guess, my point is that we should start that transition now.
> > >Start to write a mod_jk that is built around APR.  By the time 
> > >that is done, Apache 2.0 may even be release candidate.  Or not.  
> > 
> > What about working an APR wrapper ? ie something which wrap OS calls
> > to APR or native calls ? And make mod_jk call wrapper functions ?
> 
> I think that defeats the purpose of APR.  If APR isn't doing it right,
> then APR needs to be fixed.  APR should definitely support any platforms
> that you are concerned about (i.e. Win32, etc.).  Which, of course, 
> means that httpd-2.0 will run on those platforms as well.
> 
> The idea is that APR would better support these platforms than rewriting
> the same code in mod_jk.  And, ideally, if you build around APR, you
> will simplify the build process because APR will figure out all the OS
> trickiness for you.

I completely agree. We don't want a wrapper to a wrapper, yuck! If APR
isn't portable, then it's broken.


> > But even APR will only cover OS calls, and didn't solve the problems of
> > linking with web-server differents from Apache (IIS/iPlanet/Domino...)
> 
> Correct, but the core jk components could still be built around APR.  
> And, I imagine that the problem of other webservers has to do more with 
> their specific OS than the web server (i.e. linking in APR).
> 
> And, hopefully, I'll have time at some point to actually back up what I
> am saying with code.  I've just got a bazillion other things on my plate
> right now.  =)  -- justin aka "APR evangelist"


-aaron


Mime
View raw message