You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Sam Robb <sr...@wisewire.com> on 1998/01/23 20:24:05 UTC
NT Questions
Some questions for the NT folks...
The current version has apache.exe as a shell that just
links with apachecore.dll; I was able to modify things
(move the apachecore files into the apache project, tweak
some makefile settings) and build a usable version of
apache.exe that doesn't make use of the core dll.
By "usable", I mean that I was able to run apache from
the command line or as a service with a minimal config
file that loaded the NT ApacheModule*.dlls and made use
of a couple of them (headers, usertrack and status).
This is related to the effort to get profiling working
on NT - the VC profiler had little coniption fits under
the previous scheme.
What was the reason for the existance of the previous
setup (apache/apachecore)? Am I doing something incredibly
stupid or just missing some obvious point?
- Samrobb (srobb@wisewire.com)
- WiseWire Corporation - "Information - Online, On Target, All the Time"
- http://www.wisewire.com
- http://www.lycos.com/webguides/webguides.html
The box said 'Requires Windows 95, or better.' So I bought a Macintosh.
Re: NT Questions
Posted by Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>.
>Ben Laurie wrote:
>>
>> Alexei Kosut wrote:
>> >
>> > I thought it was because you (Ben) discovered that the fd-passing thing we
>> > do with CGI scripts didn't work unless the code was in a seperate DLL, if
>> > the child stuff was called from another DLL (a module). But I may be
>> > inventing memories.
>>
>> I thought that was because you and the modules had to use the DLLed MS
>> libraries, not coz we had to DLL the core.
>>
>> > If that's not the case, I definitely think we should get rid of
>> > ApacheCore.dll and export the symbols from Apache.exe.
>>
>> Fine by me :-)
>
>Whoa! I don't remember the details, but I'm *reasonably* sure the
>ApacheCore.dll was created or proposed by Alexei, and had to do with
>symbol exporting (and possibly the LoadModule stuff). I think a
>review of the archives from June/July is definitely called for; there
>was about a week's worth of discussion on this ISTR.
>
>#ken P-)}
The discussion is in nh9707. If I read between the lines it was
stated at that time that you could dynamicly link against an EXE, but
another poster said that the "NT way" was to have a small exe and a
big DLL. (That way when the justice dept comes after you you can
offer not to ship the exe :-)) In anycase if you poke around on an
NT box you find that few exe files are big, most are small and there
is some huge dll hanging around someplace. Netscape
is one of the few examples that doesn't do it that way. I wish
I knew somebody I who's a native on this platform to tell me
what the natives do. I'm only slightly interested in why but it
strikes me as good to "when in rome do as the romans do" otherwise
they look at you funny and then say "well, yeah, but he's got
rhythum".
- ben h.
Re: NT Questions
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> Alexei Kosut wrote:
> >
> > I thought it was because you (Ben) discovered that the fd-passing thing we
> > do with CGI scripts didn't work unless the code was in a seperate DLL, if
> > the child stuff was called from another DLL (a module). But I may be
> > inventing memories.
>
> I thought that was because you and the modules had to use the DLLed MS
> libraries, not coz we had to DLL the core.
>
> > If that's not the case, I definitely think we should get rid of
> > ApacheCore.dll and export the symbols from Apache.exe.
>
> Fine by me :-)
Whoa! I don't remember the details, but I'm *reasonably* sure the
ApacheCore.dll was created or proposed by Alexei, and had to do with
symbol exporting (and possibly the LoadModule stuff). I think a
review of the archives from June/July is definitely called for; there
was about a week's worth of discussion on this ISTR.
#ken P-)}
Re: NT Questions
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Alexei Kosut wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > Sam Robb wrote:
> > > What was the reason for the existance of the previous
> > > setup (apache/apachecore)? Am I doing something incredibly
> > > stupid or just missing some obvious point?
> >
> > Mainly, I seem to remember, coz persons weren't aware that you can
> > export from an exe as easily as a dll.
>
> I thought it was because you (Ben) discovered that the fd-passing thing we
> do with CGI scripts didn't work unless the code was in a seperate DLL, if
> the child stuff was called from another DLL (a module). But I may be
> inventing memories.
I thought that was because you and the modules had to use the DLLed MS
libraries, not coz we had to DLL the core.
> If that's not the case, I definitely think we should get rid of
> ApacheCore.dll and export the symbols from Apache.exe.
Fine by me :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: NT Questions
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@leland.Stanford.EDU>.
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Sam Robb wrote:
> > What was the reason for the existance of the previous
> > setup (apache/apachecore)? Am I doing something incredibly
> > stupid or just missing some obvious point?
>
> Mainly, I seem to remember, coz persons weren't aware that you can
> export from an exe as easily as a dll.
I thought it was because you (Ben) discovered that the fd-passing thing we
do with CGI scripts didn't work unless the code was in a seperate DLL, if
the child stuff was called from another DLL (a module). But I may be
inventing memories.
If that's not the case, I definitely think we should get rid of
ApacheCore.dll and export the symbols from Apache.exe.
-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *
Re: NT Questions
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Sam Robb wrote:
> What was the reason for the existance of the previous
> setup (apache/apachecore)? Am I doing something incredibly
> stupid or just missing some obvious point?
Mainly, I seem to remember, coz persons weren't aware that you can
export from an exe as easily as a dll.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache