On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 03:31:42PM -0400, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> PHP fastcgi was not ARC'ed since i am unconvinced that it is necessary.
>
> Only mod_php5/libphp5.so was ARC'ed.
>
A bit of a shame if you're going to take on other mpms than prefork.
Mod_php tends to be a bad idea with a multithre
Heads-Up:
Apache 2.2.5 is up for Release Candidate Voting at apache.org.
--Stefan
-
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jim Jagielski
Date: Aug 10, 2007 7:49 PM
Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs
for review
To: dev at httpd.apache.org, testers
Mads Toftum wrote:
> A bit of a shame if you're going to take on other mpms than prefork.
> Mod_php tends to be a bad idea with a multithreaded mpm.
>
> vh
The PHP developers, the Zend Optimizer developers, and php-security.org will
disagree with this blanket "Bad Idea Multithreaded PHP NO-NO
Seema
1. I was wondering, for simplicity sake, should we not compile the
apache httpd in the same way for both MPM models. This would allow us to
use same configure script and change only line '--with-mpm' depending on
which model we build. This way, going forward, if we need to add another
MP
Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote:
> It is essential for folks who want to use PHP with some other webserver
> like lighttpd or the Sun Web Server.
>
> Do we have cli enabled so users can run the php binary ?
Yes php-cli is enabled.
PSARC/2007/168 only deals with PHP5 and Apache. Lighttpd or Sun
>> I tried prototyping this layout structure with multiple MPMs using sfw
>> build environment.
>> I modified sfw build scripts to build and install prefork, worker mpm
>> binaries under usr/apache2/bin directory.
>
> Perhaps this is covered in another email but how does the administrator
> sele
PHP fastcgi was not ARC'ed since i am unconvinced that it is necessary.
Only mod_php5/libphp5.so was ARC'ed.
--Stefan
-
Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote:
> Does this allow the same version of PHP (say 5.2.3) to exist in two
> forms : one for apache and one for fastcgi ?
> I've not looked at
What are the advantages/disadvantages of including *.conf e.g
Include /etc/apache2/extra/*.conf
compare to including separate conf files e.g
Include /etc/apache2/extra/ssl.conf
Include /etc/apache2/extra/dav.conf
In the later case, users can comment/uncomment lines in httpd.conf to
enable/disable
David.Comay at sun.com wrote:
>> I was hoping we will use 'conf.d' as a wrapper directory for all task
>> specific configurations underneath and totally not need a directory like
>> 'extra'. I thought, the name 'extra' sounds yucky
>>
>
> However, "extra" is the name currently used by the e
It is definitely a very cool and easily manageable thing. But please
note that every vendor who redistributes Apache has done it slightly in
his own way. So, my humble request would be to thoroughly think this
through with an administrative view of point without breaking the
convention.
thanks
> In addition to my earlier comments, it doesn't seem that this proposal
> allows for multiple versions of Apache 2 to be present on the system.
> I thought at one time someone had said this was something we might
> want/have to do in the future. Is this a goal or are we fairly certain
> that only
David.Comay at sun.com wrote:
>> The initial proposal mentioned about a new directory, "conf.d" under
>> /etc/apache2 to host various Apache 2.2.4
>> server configuration files. I don't think we need this new directory.
>> We already have "extra" directory under
>> /etc/apache2 which can serve
Shanti
After we implement the currently approved ARC case, we should
definitely consider adding more extensions and with fastcgi support.
When we released PHP Add-on for Web Server 7, we built with PHP with cli
+ fastcgi + NSAPI plugin support. The way we did this to compile php 2
times one w
It is essential for folks who want to use PHP with some other webserver
like lighttpd or the Sun Web Server.
Do we have cli enabled so users can run the php binary ?
Shanti
Stefan Teleman wrote:
> PHP fastcgi was not ARC'ed since i am unconvinced that it is necessary.
>
> Only mod_php5/libphp5
Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote:
> There has been a lot of discussion about file layout for apache in
> pre-fork/MPM mode. But what about PHP ? Are we planning on building
> multiple versions of PHP for the 2 modes (with/without threading support) ?
> Are there any plans to build a fastcgi versi
Does this allow the same version of PHP (say 5.2.3) to exist in two
forms : one for apache and one for fastcgi ?
I've not looked at this deeply enough, perhaps there is a lot of
commonality between the two builds, but if there isn't than you will
need a different layout.
Shanti
Stefan Teleman
> I was hoping we will use 'conf.d' as a wrapper directory for all task
> specific configurations underneath and totally not need a directory like
> 'extra'. I thought, the name 'extra' sounds yucky
If you see our directory structure, /etc/apache2 contains only configuration
specific files.
R
If I understand correctly, PHP has an approved ARC case and we will be
implementing this ARC case as a first phase. Once this implementation
goes through successfully, we should be looking on the ways to enhance
the functionality.
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=103107𙋃
h
There has been a lot of discussion about file layout for apache in
pre-fork/MPM mode. But what about PHP ? Are we planning on building
multiple versions of PHP for the 2 modes (with/without threading support) ?
Are there any plans to build a fastcgi version of PHP ?
Even if you don't do these mu
19 matches
Mail list logo
