++1.
On Mar 6, 2014, at 3:15 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wmr...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 06:58 >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH ASF bugzilla# 55897]prefork_mpm patch with >> SO_REUSEPORT support >> >> >> If you want to truly re-architect the MPM, by all means, propose it as >> another MPM module. If it isn't adopted here, please don't hesitate >> to offer it to interested users as separate source (although I hope we >> find a way to adopt it.) >> >> The idea of different MPM's was that they were swappable. MPM foo >> isn't MPM bar. E.g., worker, prefork, event each have their own tree. >> Likewise, there is nothing stopping us from having 2, or 3 MPM's on >> Windows, and there is nothing stopping us from stating that there is a >> prerequisite on a particular MPM of Linux 3.1 kernels or Windows >> 2008+. > > +1 to a new MPM on trunk. This gives it more time to settle and to stabilize > without disrupting current stuff. And if it is fast and stable it will > certainly > cause the 'older' MPM to drop in userbase :-). > IMHO this would even open a path to 2.4.x provided that we do not need any > other > non backportable changes to do this. > > Regards > > Rüdiger >
