Threading, 2.0 and 1.2

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Is it possible or likely that going to a threaded server will break
Apache on currently running platforms. Right now, Apache is running
on some relatively old OSs, some of which may not be able to go
multi-threaded.

If that's a risk, I'd suggest keeping m-t as a goal for 2.0, and
continue working on 1.2 so if we _do_ need to drop some old OSs,
at least they get some of the additional benefits of HTTP 1.1, etc...
that will be in 1.2.

I'm being selfish here because A/UX is SysVR3 (mostly) based and
want to make sure that Apache keeps running on it, but I also know
that there are likely a LOT of others out there in the same boat.
I'd prefer not cutting them off if at all possible.
-- 
Jim Jagielski  << jim@jaguNET.com >>   |   "There is a time for laughing,
  **  jaguNET Access Services  **      |    and a time for not laughing,
      Email: info@jaguNET.com          |    and this is not one of them"
++    http://www.jaguNET.com/         +++      Voice/Fax: 410-931-3157       ++

Re: Threading, 2.0 and 1.2

[Michael Douglass <mi...@texas.net>]

On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Is it possible or likely that going to a threaded server will break
> Apache on currently running platforms. Right now, Apache is running
> on some relatively old OSs, some of which may not be able to go
> multi-threaded.
> 
> If that's a risk, I'd suggest keeping m-t as a goal for 2.0, and
> continue working on 1.2 so if we _do_ need to drop some old OSs,
> at least they get some of the additional benefits of HTTP 1.1, etc...
> that will be in 1.2.
> 
> I'm being selfish here because A/UX is SysVR3 (mostly) based and
> want to make sure that Apache keeps running on it, but I also know
> that there are likely a LOT of others out there in the same boat.
> I'd prefer not cutting them off if at all possible.

Will it not be possible (I've never actually written a threaded application,
but I know enough about the concepts and apis to be dangerous :) to support
threading as well as the old fork() method?  We know that the fork() method
works, so would it not be possible to make the code thread safe and have
it branch one of two ways -DDOFORK or -DDOTHREAD when it comes down to
handling the actual management of processes/threads?

Just thinking out-loud... Shoot me later... :)

Michael Douglass
Texas Networking, Inc.

  "To be a saint is to be an exception; to be a true man is the rule.
   Err, fail, sin if you must, but be upright.  To sin as little as
   possible is the law for men; to sin not at all is a dream for angels."

              - Victor Hugo, "Les Miserables"