You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Brian Behlendorf <br...@hyperreal.org> on 1999/04/17 05:16:05 UTC
VOTE: apache-apr -> (1.4|2.0)
Hi folks. The time has come to make a decision; and apologies if this
seems out of line, but it seems like the arguments have been made, and
it's time to decide, as a group. This is an issue worth gathering the
collective opinion on, as it's a change that affects everyone working or
intending to work on the code in question. So I'm going to propose a
process for this; if anyone has an issue with it, and feels strongly this
is the wrong way to go, feel free to speak your mind, but please use a
different subject line.
It will work this way: read the propositions below, and then snip the
ballot at the bottom, make your selections, and send that to the list,
using this subject line. I will collect responses through Tuesday night,
and summarize for the list, and then take a set of actions (related to CVS
wrangling) based on those conclusions. If you want to change your mind,
submit another ballot; I'll select only the latest ballot from any single
person. Obviously, this is not a secret ballot.
#######
Question I: Should the next release of Apache be based on the hybrid
"apache-apr" prototype?
YES [ ] NO [ ]
Question II: Should the next release of Apache be called 1.4 or 2.0, even
if multithreading and a portability API are the only new additions?
YES [ ] NO [ ]
Question III: If you answered "yes" to question I, and consider 'N' to be
either 1.4 or 2.0 based on your answer to question II, is the following a
reasonable set of actions to take?
a) Rename the "apache-2.0" CVS module to "apache-nspr".
YES [ ] NO [ ]
b) Move the "2.0 design documents" from apache-nspr to a new
directory under apache-site
YES [ ] NO [ ]
c) Create a new "apache-N" module, import APACHE_1_3_6 as tagged
from the apache_1.3 module, and patch it to bring it up to apache-apr
functionality.
YES [ ] NO [ ]
d) *Alternately to IIIc:* create the "apache-N" module and import the
apache-apr/pthreads tree from the "apache-apr" repository.
YES [ ] NO [ ]
e) "apache-apr" should be kept around a project aimed at developing a
generic portability layer for other Apache projects (or even
non-Apache).
Vote early, vote often!
Brian
#######
Ballot for Apache 1.4/2.0 directions:
I: YES [ ] NO [ ]
II: YES [ ] NO [ ]
IIIa: YES [ ] NO [ ]
IIIb: YES [ ] NO [ ]
IIIc: YES [ ] NO [ ]
IIId: YES [ ] NO [ ]
IIIe: YES [ ] NO [ ]
#######
Re: Apache-Apr description ?
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 18, 1999 at 04:44:24PM +0200, Michel Debar wrote:
> > I would like to find a description of the Apache-apr project
>
> Basically, it is an extension of the Apache 1.3 design
This is a confusion. The 'apache-apr project' is devoted to
constructing a portable runtime library (the 'pr' in 'apr')
that can be used in more things than just the Apache Web server
(the 'portable' in 'portable runtime').
It happens that the apache-apr directory tree has also been
used as the working area for the 'hybrid server' project, which
is what Manoj described.
>From the recent voting, it seems clear that the hybrid server
project will be moving out of the apache-apr tree and into its
own, leaving apache-apr containing *only* the APR project.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
Re: Apache-Apr description ?
Posted by Michel Debar <mi...@fundp.ac.be>.
Thank you for the info - it sufficiently describes the idea for me.
Regards, Michel Debar
At 15:39 18.04.99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 18, 1999 at 04:44:24PM +0200, Michel Debar wrote:
>> I would like to find a description of the Apache-apr project, and could not
>> locate any. Can some kind person help by providing a pointer, or a
>> document, or a pointer to where the discussion on this is archived.
>
>Hmmm, I don't actually know of a description archived on the net about
>this code. What kind of info are you looking for?
>
>Basically, it is an extension of the Apache 1.3 design, to have
>multiple processes, each with multiple threads serving requests. Right
>now, it is based on pthreads, meaning Unix-only, but eventually we'll
>base it on a portability layer so it can run on other platforms.
>
>Manoj
Michel DEBAR - Directeur Technique - FUNDP University Computing Centre
61, rue de Bruxelles B5000 Namur Belgium
tel +32 (81) 72 50 16
fax +32 (81) 72 50 23
e-mail Michel.Debar@fundp.ac.be
web http://www.fundp.ac.be (travail)
http://michel.debar.org (personnel)
Re: Apache-Apr description ?
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@raleigh.ibm.com>.
On Sun, Apr 18, 1999 at 04:44:24PM +0200, Michel Debar wrote:
> I would like to find a description of the Apache-apr project, and could not
> locate any. Can some kind person help by providing a pointer, or a
> document, or a pointer to where the discussion on this is archived.
Hmmm, I don't actually know of a description archived on the net about
this code. What kind of info are you looking for?
Basically, it is an extension of the Apache 1.3 design, to have
multiple processes, each with multiple threads serving requests. Right
now, it is based on pthreads, meaning Unix-only, but eventually we'll
base it on a portability layer so it can run on other platforms.
Manoj
Re: QUESTION: apache-apr -> (1.4|2.0)
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@hyperreal.org>.
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> > Question II: Should the next release of Apache be called 1.4 or 2.0, even
> > if multithreading and a portability API are the only new additions?
> > YES [ ] NO [ ]
>
> Erm... I'm not quite sure I follow that one. "should it be called 1.4 or
> 2.0". What are we saying if we say no? Is this supposed to be a choice
> between 1.4 and 2.0?
Argh, malicious cut and paste. I will repost.
> And note that it isn't the "next release" but the next non-point.
Correct.
Brian
Re: QUESTION: apache-apr -> (1.4|2.0)
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>.
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Question II: Should the next release of Apache be called 1.4 or 2.0, even
> if multithreading and a portability API are the only new additions?
> YES [ ] NO [ ]
Erm... I'm not quite sure I follow that one. "should it be called 1.4 or
2.0". What are we saying if we say no? Is this supposed to be a choice
between 1.4 and 2.0?
And note that it isn't the "next release" but the next non-point.
Re: VOTE: apache-apr -> (1.4|2.0)
Posted by Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@lerdorf.on.ca>.
Either it is too late at night and my brain is tired, or maybe I am just
too dense, but a couple of those questions made very little sense to me.
I was expecting something in there to ask whether the next point release
should be called 1.4 or 2.0. I thought we already pretty much unanimously
decided to try to make the next point release apr-based.
For the record, I think it should be called 2.0. It gives people the
impression that it is a big deal moving from 1.3.x to 2.0 as opposed to
going from 1.3.x to 1.4. And it is a big deal moving from a multi-process
based server to a hybrid server with the ability to do MT. It will break
a whole whack of third-party non-MT safe things that they may or may not
have attached to their httpd.
Nearly 1 in 5 Apache-run domains out there currently use mod_php3. That's
a lot of servers running a module that is not currently MT-safe.
Hopefully by the time an Apache with MT capabilities is ready, there will
be a version of PHP waiting for these people to upgrade to. With the API
changes and the apr layer, I first need to wait for this stuff to
stabilize, then I need to do a lot of work in the PHP code. I don't see
this as a minor thing. Whether there are new features or not, a basic
architecture change like this warrants a major revision number upgrade in
my books.
-Rasmus