RE: newbie confused, documentation seems contradictory and/or inc omplete.

[Gr...@pfizer.com]

> > I'm concerned that six (or eighteen) months down the line if I have
> > questions they'll be answered by "you should be running the most
> > current version, stop pestering with obsolete Apache 1.3" Setting up
> > a new server has been enough of a pain without doing it again in a
> > few months.
> 
> I suppose that's possible, but I find it unlikely.  Apache 1.3 is very
> stable and I don't expect to see a mass shift to Apache 2 in
> production usage any time soon, particularly in mod_perl programming
> where the porting costs are non-zero.
> 
> Actually, considering the relative pace of Apache 2 versus Apache 1.3
> development, I think you're more likely to encounter the situation you
> fear with Apache 2.  The chances of a major new release altering
> significant functionality in Apache 1.3 is quite low.
> 
> -sam

Sam, 

This opens an interesting debate as tomcat/mod_jk2 has similar issues, and
there development and the user community seem more focused on 2 than 1.3.
This makes 2 more attractive.  I also get the feeling that module
development seems to have more activity around 2 in other areas.

Obviously MP is allot different, but one day I think we would want MP to be
a better choice on 2 than 1, and I get the impression the HTTP developers
are moving on to 2, and view 1 as legacy.

AIMHO of course.

Greg

-- 
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html

RE: newbie confused, documentation seems contradictory and/or inc omplete.

[Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>]

On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 14:33, Greg.Cope@pfizer.com wrote:
> Obviously MP is allot different, but one day I think we would want MP to be
> a better choice on 2 than 1, and I get the impression the HTTP developers
> are moving on to 2, and view 1 as legacy.

We want to encourage people to use, develop for, and help with mp 2,
since it is the future of mod_perl.  However, there is nothing broken
about apache 1 or mp 1 and both are used on some of the largest sites in
the world, so I have great confidence in choosing them for new
projects.  I certainly don't consider either of them "legacy" at this
point, and there is no day in sight when a mp 1 question would be pushed
aside on this mailing list.

- Perrin


-- 
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html

RE: newbie confused, documentation seems contradictory and/or inc omplete.

[Sam Tregar <sa...@tregar.com>]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 Greg.Cope@pfizer.com wrote:

> I also get the feeling that module development seems to have more
> activity around 2 in other areas.

I'm sure you're right.  There's a lot of work to be re-done!  How much
fun is it to work on Apache 1.3 where everything important already
works?

> Obviously MP is allot different, but one day I think we would want MP to be
> a better choice on 2 than 1, and I get the impression the HTTP developers
> are moving on to 2, and view 1 as legacy.

That might be true.  I wouldn't know, since I'm not a core Apache or
mod_perl developer.  I'm just a mod_perl user, and I pick my
technologies based on my perception of their suitability to the task
at hand and their maturity.  As far as I can tell Apache 1.3 is still
the best platform for production mod_perl usage, and will probably
remain so for some time to come.

-sam


-- 
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html