On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Joshua Slive wrote: > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > Now, we could solve both problems by using a handler and > > the prefork MPM. But then, Apache 2.0+PHP is basically > > Apache 1.3+PHP with a few extra modules thrown in. That's > > how it appears to the end-user at least. > > I don't buy that argument. Are you saying that if Apache 1.4 had been > released with a couple extra modules but no threading or filters, then PHP > would have stuck with 1.3 because it works "well enough"? No, I hope PHP > would have updated to 1.4 to take advantage of the current development > efforts. Those development efforts include not just a couple new modules > (major ones like mod_ssl, mod_dav, mod_deflate, mod_auth_ldap, etc), but > lots and lots of other enhancements (IPv6, PCRE, improved negotiation, > better documentation, better non-unix support, many bug fixes, etc).
The reality is that people can do SSL, DAV, Gzip, auth_ldap and everything else with 1.3. Things are a bit more coherent in 2.0 and from a design perspective it all fits together in a nicer way, but an end user just installs the appropriate package for 1.3 and it just works. The fact that the guy who rolled the package had a nightmare job to make it seamless is of no real concern to the end user. Our bread and butter here are the Linux and FreeBSD web servers out there. They do not run ipv6, they don't care about Windows and they certainly don't read documentation. What are we offering them? > So why not just do a handler-based PHP for 2.0, and work on other problems > in the future. This is a silly family quarel that is making everyone look > bad. Go for it. You sound motivated. http://www.php.net/cvs-php.php is where you sign up for a CVS account. I will make sure you, or anyone else here interested in helping out gets a CVS account promptly. -Rasmus
