apr and 2.0 ??

[Laurent Sinitambirivoutin <du...@eurosport.com>]

I've just read Dean's post..
Sorry but as I'm rather new here, i didn't really catch the differences
between apr & 2.0
So apr is pthreads based while 2.0 relies on mpm which is ... something
I obviously don't know (maybe a kind of layer like nspr ??) 
which one is stabler ? I've got a mpm version downloaded from Dean's
site, but half the modules haven't been ported... And if apr isn't 2.0,
should I assume that it's fairly compatible with 1.3 (which would be a
real happiness) ? Yeah I know that i've not RTFM yet, but please answer
anyway, I promise I'll read ALL the doc ;-)

btw, i've made so minor changes on nspr-08 (nothing important, just
fixes to make it compile). If someone is interested, just let me know
(but i've been told that the nspr stuff's dead anyway ?)

-- 
Laurent.D.Sinitambirivoutin
Root of Eurosport Website
duredhel@eurosport.com
Get all about sport on http://www.eurosport.com !

Re: apr and 2.0 ??

[Alexei Kosut <ak...@leland.Stanford.EDU>]

On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Ryan Bloom wrote:

> My wish list for 2.0 pretty much is in line with Bill's, with one minor
> change.  On any platform that supports it, I would like the hybrid mpm to
> be the default.  I think the hybrid server is a big enough win that it is
> worth it.  And, I think the mpm changes allow us to put asynch I/O into
> 2.1 without any problem.  I just want to see 2.0 released soon, becuase I
> think if we wait too long, we will never release it.

We've waited over three years, we can stand to wait a little more...
Seriously, I just had a flashback to 1997, recalling the good laugh I was
having over the thought of an Apache 2000. I mean, really, we'd planned to
have 2.0 out by December 1996. Heck, we even had a good chunk of the code
written (rst's apache-XX). There's no way it would take *another* three
years. Only Microsoft has those kind of release schedules (note that
Windows 2000 nee NT 5.0 was also supposed to be released in late 1996).

Ironic, huh?

-- 
Alexei Kosut <ak...@cs.stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org/> *

Re: apr and 2.0 ??

[Ryan Bloom <rb...@raleigh.ibm.com>]

This is a REALLY quick overview of the current 2.0 development going on
for anybody new to the list.  I will do my best to be impartial, if I
fail, sorry. :)

apache-apr:  There are 2 projects in this repository, the first is a
hybrid port of Apache, it is in a pthreads directory, but it is a hybrid
server.  This is running on a few production sites, and has been proven to
support more concurrent clients than 1.3.  The second project is APR.
IMHO, this is the more interesting area, it is abstracting out anythng
which is not core to a web server.  It has file handling, forking, and a
lot of the old ap_ library from 1.3.

apache-nspr:  This is a bit older code, but it is really the basis for the
apache-apr work.  It is a strictly threaded port of Apache on top of nspr.
This is basically a dead project, I think everybody can agree, because the
apr work moved it forward a bit, and nspr doesn't have a lot of stuff that
would be nice to have in a hybrid server (like signals), and Speaking for
myself ONLY, the amount of time it took to get nspr released under a
license everybody in the Apache Group could work on left me with a bad
taste in my mouth WRT nspr.   :-)

apache-20/mpm:  This is VERY interesting work.  It is basically
abstracting out the parent/child relationship in it's most basic form.  It
has a prefork, and hybrid model in it already.  Recently, work has been
done to put layered I/O and an async mpm in it.  I do not know if it is
running any production servers yet, nor how well it scales, I don't think
anybody has run any tests.
========================================================================

End of the impartial part.  Now my opinions.  :)

As for my opinion, I would like to see Apache-2.0 released as a beta
relatively soon after 1.3.7.  I think that means the most recent work in
the mpm tree should be left for 2.1 (asynch I/O and I/O layering).  I do
not know how different the apr and mpm trees are at this point, there has
really been too much moving of code to be able to judge that easily.
Here's my wish list for 2.0:

My wish list for 2.0 pretty much is in line with Bill's, with one minor
change.  On any platform that supports it, I would like the hybrid mpm to
be the default.  I think the hybrid server is a big enough win that it is
worth it.  And, I think the mpm changes allow us to put asynch I/O into
2.1 without any problem.  I just want to see 2.0 released soon, becuase I
think if we wait too long, we will never release it.

Ryan


On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Laurent Sinitambirivoutin wrote:

> I've just read Dean's post..
> Sorry but as I'm rather new here, i didn't really catch the differences
> between apr & 2.0
> So apr is pthreads based while 2.0 relies on mpm which is ... something
> I obviously don't know (maybe a kind of layer like nspr ??) 
> which one is stabler ? I've got a mpm version downloaded from Dean's
> site, but half the modules haven't been ported... And if apr isn't 2.0,
> should I assume that it's fairly compatible with 1.3 (which would be a
> real happiness) ? Yeah I know that i've not RTFM yet, but please answer
> anyway, I promise I'll read ALL the doc ;-)
> 
> btw, i've made so minor changes on nspr-08 (nothing important, just
> fixes to make it compile). If someone is interested, just let me know
> (but i've been told that the nspr stuff's dead anyway ?)
> 
> -- 
> Laurent.D.Sinitambirivoutin
> Root of Eurosport Website
> duredhel@eurosport.com
> Get all about sport on http://www.eurosport.com !
> 

_______________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom		rbb@raleigh.ibm.com
4205 S Miami Blvd	
RTP, NC 27709		It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers 
			doing simple steps.  It's a painful sight to
			see beginners doing complicated patterns.