Re: http/2, spdy and bears, oh my!

2014-03-05 Thread Pierre Joye
hi,

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
 With http/2 becoming closer and closer, and spdy being
 in place as we speak, it seems that we should really
 ramp up development on trunk to support these new techs.

 Lets get serious on what needs to be done w/ trunk
 to get there, and what our wish-list is for new capability
 and architecture.

 Taking a page from mod_spdy, breaking the connection-request
 singularity looks like an interesting 1st step, maybe via
 some sort of virtual connection which a real connection
 can spin up/down and which corresponds to the request's
 actual connection...

By the way, I was wondering what the Apache strategy here. Do you plan
to implement your own httpbis stack or use existing library like
https://github.com/tatsuhiro-t/nghttp2?

-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org


Re: 2.4.3, build with vc11 (2012)

2013-01-26 Thread Pierre Joye
hi,

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
 hi!

 Has anyone tried to build 2.4.3 with vc11?

 Using either makefiles or dsp (converted), I got a rc.exe error,
 invalid usage. The cmd line is:

 rc.exe /d NDEBUG /d APP_FILE /d BIN_NAME=httpd.exe /d
 LONG_NAME=Apache HTTP Server /d ICON_FILE=apache.ico /d
 _VC80_UPGRADE=0x0600 /l 0x409 /I build\win32 /I ./include /I
 ./srclib/apr/include /fo.\Release/httpd.res
 .\build\win32\httpd.rc

 However other rc calls produce the same error.

Replying to myself.

Builds fixed now but for ApacheMonitor (corrupted resources, as I do
not need it now, it will have to wait).

You can fetch VC11-x86 builds here
http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/vc11_deps/ (apache dir,
x86 and x64 contains pre built dependencies for PHP, most of them can
or are used for PHP builds).

Question: is there any interest to move to makefiles only builds?
These dsw (and conversion) brings all kind of issues and are not very
flexible. I was thinking about something like what I did for curl:

https://github.com/bagder/curl/blob/master/winbuild/BUILD.WINDOWS.txt

Alternatively porting the php build script (autoconf-like system,
implemented in javascript, using cscript), it is very flexible and
allows exact match to what is done using the unix autoconf configure
options.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye


Re: 2.4.3, build with vc11 (2012)

2013-01-26 Thread Pierre Joye
Hi Mario!

On Jan 26, 2013 5:24 PM, Mario Brandt jbl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,
  Alternatively porting the php build script (autoconf-like system,
  implemented in javascript, using cscript), it is very flexible and
  allows exact match to what is done using the unix autoconf configure
  options.
 I'm for it. An automatic build script no matter the language would be
 awesome. Well the subversion guys already using such a system
 (including mod_svn) generating the dsp / dsw files.
 Have the same compiling options in the build script as on *nix system
 would simplify things for the users.

It generates makefiles, easier and work Wirth all VCs :)


2.4.3, build with vc11 (2012)

2013-01-21 Thread Pierre Joye
hi!

Has anyone tried to build 2.4.3 with vc11?

Using either makefiles or dsp (converted), I got a rc.exe error,
invalid usage. The cmd line is:

rc.exe /d NDEBUG /d APP_FILE /d BIN_NAME=httpd.exe /d
LONG_NAME=Apache HTTP Server /d ICON_FILE=apache.ico /d
_VC80_UPGRADE=0x0600 /l 0x409 /I build\win32 /I ./include /I
./srclib/apr/include /fo.\Release/httpd.res
.\build\win32\httpd.rc

However other rc calls produce the same error.

Cheers.
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye


Re: PHP5.3.6

2011-04-17 Thread Pierre Joye
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Akins, Brian brian.ak...@turner.com wrote:
 On 4/15/11 6:11 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:


 Am 15.04.2011 23:01, schrieb Jeff Trawick:

 FastCGI is a way to get us out of all sorts of dark alleys; let's be
 sure to keep it in mind as one of the tools to address binary
 compatibility issues, PHP-centered or not

 but you can not use .htaccess with cgi

 .htaccess works just fine with FastCGI.  .htaccess is handled by Apache as
 normal.  FastCGI is just a different way to run the PHP interpreter in this
 case.

No, php's directive does not work when PHP is used via FastCGI. But
the .user.ini feature in 5.3 (ported from pecl's htscanner) does.

Also I disagree that FastCGI is the best thing on earth for php/other
on windows. But that's another story :)

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org


re: 5.3.6

2011-04-04 Thread Pierre Joye
hi,

Sorry for creating a new thread, I tried to get the thread in separate
mails but failed, and for the late reply.

 dev Digest of: get.71102_71118

 Topics (messages 71102 through 71118):

 PHP5.3.6

 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com
 To: dev@httpd.apache.org
 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:24:48 -0400
 Subject: PHP5.3.6
 I wanted to be sure that folks are aware of what's going on in the 
 Windows/PHP world. I know that, in one sense, it's not our problem, but it 
 *feels* like our problem to me, and to many of our users.

 PHP5.3.6 was just released, and the Windows binaries are built with VC9, 
 meaning that it won't work with our Windows binaries. I know that it's been 
 discussed before, and there's a plan to move to VC9, but as of last week, the 
 official PHP build doesn't run with the official Apache httpd build. The PHP 
 website recommends that folks use the Apache Lounge build.

 This sucks.

It is nothing new, we have been provided VC9 builds since 5.3.0. As we
did not initially plan to drop VC6 support in 5.3.x, we did not have
any other choice at this point.

 It sucks that our users have to jump through additional hoops. It sucks even 
 more that there wasn't (or at least, it appears to me that there wasn't) 
 conversation between the two communities prior to this happening. The folks 
 in php-land are aware that it's a problem, but don't see to really think that 
 it's *their* problem. For our part, we seem to be unaware that anything 
 happened.

We had contacts and discussions with Bill before (his post later in
this thread was by the way a surprise to me, like it was a totally new
thing that php has VC9 builds for 5.3 and that we never ever discussed
it and what should be done, I will reply to his reply in details and
later).

 I'm not sure exactly what I'm suggesting we do about this. It would be nice 
 if we could provide binaries built with VC9, or if we could recommend on the 
 download site that people get binaries from ApacheLounge. I don't know if 
 either of these is really an option. How would folks feel about our download 
 site encouraging folks to use ApacheLounge's version of 2.2? I suspect that 
 there'd be some resistance to this, based on our previous interactions with 
 them.

It is a recommendation and apachelounge can be trusted just as good as
apache.org's builds. Which are, according to Bill, convenience builds
not official builds.

On the other hand, I'm working with the leading packager (xamp, wamp
or easyphp) to get them migrate to VC9 for their 5.3 packages. Easyphp
did it already, xamp will follow shortly. Like it or not, this
undesired step moves the ball forward.

 I have a foot in the documentation team of both projects,

I wonder how you did not hear about this issue in our php internals
list, our RC announcements, etc. then.

 so I tend to hear both sides of the conversation at least from that 
 perspective. I'd like for us to be more proactive about strengthening the 
 community bond between us and what is probably the most important third-party 
 Apache httpd module. There seems to be a pretty strong they don't ever 
 listen to us attitude on both sides, and I'm not sure that it's really 
 warranted.

That's not accurate. We have discussed together about what we should
do, together, sync'ed. Bill's replies so far was pretty much the same
as what he has written later here. Much theories and co but no
solution, alternative or even correct information or backlogs. It was
also told that apache will use whatever is available at that time,
which is what we did as well by the time of the 5.3.0 release.

PHP next major version is another story and we are willing to be sure
that such problems won't ever happen again (see below).

To summarize:

We have been waiting for apache for years to move to something more
decent than the dead VC6. It took us a lot of resource to keep VC6
support (actually it costs me a lot of time). And that's something
we/I can't afford anymore, the recent floating point bug in 5.3.5
forces us to end the VC6 support.

The positive side of this move is that recent versions of VC9 gives us
tools to provide CRT agnostic binaries (SxS being one). It could a
very valid solution. It is also much easier to write clean enough code
with these versions than with the VC6 crt (mingw included), clean
enough to be loaded and used by an app compiled against a different
crt (I have some VC10 php working just fine with a VC9 apache). There
are a couple of things we have to take care about, but I'm confident
we can solve them as well.

Cheers,
- Hide quoted text -
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net