Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: If the user must rewrite their content handlers to pay attention to thread jumps, and must use some sort of yeild beyond apr_socket_poll/select(), then I'd agree it becomes 3.0. I wouldn't worry about protocol/mpm authors, who are a breed to ourselves and should be able to handle any bump. It's the joe who put together a nifty auth or content module who has to jump through hoops to learn the new API who will suffer if we don't yell out **3.0**!!! Well, I get back to thinking about the cultural difference between open source and commercial software here. That is, the difference between a conceptually simple system (Unix) and a system with optimization for every special case, codesign, et. al (OS/360) When Microsoft decided that threading would be ~the way~ in Windows, they put a lot of effort into letting people run old components by tagging old components as threadsafe or not, and automatically serializing components that aren't threadsafe. The prefork model has contributed to the reality and perception of Apache as a reliable product. Threading is great for a system that's built like a swiss watch, but a disaster for the tangle of scripts (or tangle of objects) that most web sites run. In the days of MS-DOS, I did a lot of downloading over a 2400 baud modem, so I wrote an xmodem/ymodem client that ran in the background as you did other things -- this was your classic interrupt-driven state machine. I never got it to work 100% right. It's not easy to do this kind of programming AND when you push the hardware and OS in this direction you find out things you wish you hadn't. I've had the same experience with single-threaded web servers such as thttpd and boa. I'd do a quick evaluation and I'd be like damn that's fast and then I'd put it into production and find that they didn't work 100% right. I'd go back to Apache because, even if ate more RAM than I liked, Apache worked correctly. As Apache has been moving in the direction of more efficient concurrency models, IIS has been moving in the direction of more isolation. I'd love more efficiency, but I don't want to give up reliability -- if the world's web apps are going to need to be designed like swiss watches in the future, the world is going to pass Apache 3 by.
Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
Paul A Houle wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: If the user must rewrite their content handlers to pay attention to thread jumps, and must use some sort of yeild beyond apr_socket_poll/select(), then I'd agree it becomes 3.0. I wouldn't worry about protocol/mpm authors, who are a breed to ourselves and should be able to handle any bump. It's the joe who put together a nifty auth or content module who has to jump through hoops to learn the new API who will suffer if we don't yell out **3.0**!!! The prefork model has contributed to the reality and perception of Apache as a reliable product. Threading is great for a system that's built like a swiss watch, but a disaster for the tangle of scripts (or tangle of objects) that most web sites run. I suppose it bears spelling out every couple months, but nobody is suggesting that httpd will abandon the prefork MPM. Run it, or threaded, or event/async. If the author of your favorite mod_foo hasn't ensured it can actually handle async thread context jumps, then run threaded (or prefork if they haven't really ported it to 2.0 by now.) That's great - the point to the MPM design is to let us plug in a variety of technologies based on kernel architectures, hardware and so forth. I find it amusing that after all the hoopla over Hyperthreading and other flavors of parallelism, Intel looks to drop us all into dual cpu boxes by the end of '07. More efficient parallelism can't be avoided if httpd is going to remain relevant. Bill
[Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
Yo dude, while the community may not catch/catch up with press, if we planned to 'announce' Apache 2.2 as an httpd splash at the convention opening plenary, this sort of just deep sixed that - since I'm pretty sure most convention attendees follow [EMAIL PROTECTED], those who are httpd users. Oh - why to users@ and not [EMAIL PROTECTED] (announce@apache.org, as well as [EMAIL PROTECTED], as after all this is big news.) Query; you let the mirrors catch up 24 hours, right? Or you just decided to burn the extra ASF bandwidth? Oh, to all who've contributed, congrats! Bill Original Message Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:59:36 -0800 From: Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org To: users@httpd.apache.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released The Apache Software Foundation and The Apache HTTP Server Project are pleased to announce the release of version 2.2.0 of the Apache HTTP Server (Apache). We consider this release to be the best version of Apache available, and encourage users of all prior versions to upgrade. Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 is available for download from: http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi Apache 2.2 offers numerous enhancements, improvements, and performance boosts over the 2.0 codebase. For an overview of new features introduced since 2.0 please see: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/new_features_2_2.html Please see the CHANGES_2.2 file, linked from the download page, for a full list of changes. This release includes the Apache Portable Runtime (APR) version 1.2.2 bundled with the tar and zip distributions. The APR libraries libapr, libaprutil, and (on Win32) libapriconv must all be updated to ensure binary compatibility and address many known platform bugs. This release has been through extensive testing, including live at some of the world's busiest sites, and is now considered stable. This means that modules and applications developed for Apache 2.2.0 will be both source- and binary-compatible with future 2.2.x releases. This release builds on and extends the Apache 2.0 API. Modules written for Apache 2.0 will need to be recompiled in order to run with Apache 2.2, but no substantial reworking should be necessary. http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/VERSIONING Known Issues Some non-showstopping issues were found during the 2.2.0 release and testing cycle: * mod_dbd and mod_authn_dbd are absent from the Windows build environment. A patch to correct this is available from: http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.2.0/ * If you are installing on a system with apr/apr-util 1.0 or 1.1 installed, you must build apr/apr-util 1.2 manually. See: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/install.html#requirements When upgrading or installing this version of Apache, please bear in mind that if you intend to use Apache with one of the threaded MPMs, you must ensure that any modules you will be using (and the libraries they depend on) are thread-safe. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDj3JI94h19kJyHwARAjaPAKC3gmvzyR69tpOpomR3ktKKfBxk0QCghEej YqkrzomfpIIMq4m+P1VxSf0= =sbqV -END PGP SIGNATURE- - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Yo dude, while the community may not catch/catch up with press, if we planned to 'announce' Apache 2.2 as an httpd splash at the convention opening plenary, this sort of just deep sixed that - since I'm pretty sure most convention attendees follow [EMAIL PROTECTED], those who are httpd users. Oh - why to users@ and not [EMAIL PROTECTED] (announce@apache.org, as well as [EMAIL PROTECTED], as after all this is big news.) I have sent it to both of those. It is still waiting moderation. users@httpd.apache.org is the only one that I don't need moderation for. Query; you let the mirrors catch up 24 hours, right? Or you just decided to burn the extra ASF bandwidth? Yes, it has been on the mirrors for over 24 hours now. -Paul
Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
Known Issues Some non-showstopping issues were found during the 2.2.0 release and testing cycle: * mod_dbd and mod_authn_dbd are absent from the Windows build environment. A patch to correct this is available from: http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.2.0/ * If you are installing on a system with apr/apr-util 1.0 or 1.1 installed, you must build apr/apr-util 1.2 manually. See: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/install.html#requirements You know, it's a real shame when an open source project, which should abide by the rule release when ready and isn't driven by artificial schedules or deadlines must ship a major new release with known issues. I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I still don't understand the reason for such a rushed release, when an extra few days would likely have resolved them... Anyway, we should still feel very happy and proud for this major release. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Query; you let the mirrors catch up 24 hours, right? Or you just decided to burn the extra ASF bandwidth? It appears so; I've just cleaned up all the 2.1 turds left behind, but it will take the daily -full- rsync in order for those files to disappear from the www.apache.org/dist/httpd/ site. (Only new files are updated every two hrs.) Also purged /dev/dist/ and moved aside all the aspdotnet subproject stuff into a subproject-specific directory.
Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
Jim Jagielski wrote: I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I still don't understand the reason for such a rushed release, when an extra few days would likely have resolved them... Because it's httpd-dev tradition, .0 releases are never ready, and most RM's live to regret them, yet new RM's are always ready to step in :) Release early, release often. It appears that apr itself is responsible for most of the confusion that I raised, not httpd, and certainly can be addressed during the lifecycle of 2.2.x. In fact, it probably won't be fully addressed until APR 2.0, when all the APR 1.0 badness is safely ignored by the modern projects then. Win32 binaries? Who cares? NOT this project. Binaries are a courtesy, not a requirement, perhaps this needs to be reinforced occassionally in realtime. (NO, this is not at all sarcastic, and I trust most long term project members here agree.) httpd-2.2.0 is a source project, and if the build/install/binaries are all a little flakey, it should not detract from the tarball. I don't believe we had any more code to fix before declaring .0 (and certainly will have lots of opportunities for .1, .2, .3...). Anyway, we should still feel very happy and proud for this major release. ++1! On to 2.4 :)
Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
Paul Querna wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Oh - why to users@ and not [EMAIL PROTECTED] (announce@apache.org, as well as [EMAIL PROTECTED], as after all this is big news.) I have sent it to both of those. It is still waiting moderation. users@httpd.apache.org is the only one that I don't need moderation for. As an RM you speak for a project, not your ego... From: Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] is auto-circular-filed in the announce moderation queues. Try wearing the right hat.
Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: ++1! On to 2.4 :) you mean X right? :) Seriously though, will the inclusion of all the async stuff warrant a jump to 3.0? -- Brian Akins Lead Systems Engineer CNN Internet Technologies
Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
Brian Akins wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Seriously though, will the inclusion of all the async stuff warrant a jump to 3.0? My 2c CA (yes, I have 2 of them sitting here)... If the user can write a content handling module that ignores threading and remains on-thread, then it's a 2.4 change. If the user must rewrite their content handlers to pay attention to thread jumps, and must use some sort of yeild beyond apr_socket_poll/select(), then I'd agree it becomes 3.0. I wouldn't worry about protocol/mpm authors, who are a breed to ourselves and should be able to handle any bump. It's the joe who put together a nifty auth or content module who has to jump through hoops to learn the new API who will suffer if we don't yell out **3.0**!!! Bill
Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
Brian Akins wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: ++1! On to 2.4 :) you mean X right? :) How about dropping numbers totally and using colors? Apache HTTP Server Green :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: [Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [announce] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.0 Released]
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I still don't understand the reason for such a rushed release, when an extra few days would likely have resolved them... Because it's httpd-dev tradition, .0 releases are never ready, and most RM's live to regret them, yet new RM's are always ready to step in :) :) With 1.3 now basically in idle-mode, I'm hoping to scratch my RM itch with 2.2.x's -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
