Hans Zaunere wrote:
I know apache_hooks but after discussion with George and others, I
wouldn't feel comfortable recommending to clients, especially with
EXPERIMENTAL notes and no mention on php.net. The potential
functionality it could provide, however, would be very popular, on par
with mod_rewr
On Dec 30, 2004, at 2:23 PM, Hans Zaunere wrote:
That has nothing to do with Apache2 and has been available for Apache1
for years. It just isn't a very popular feature. See the
apache_hooks
code.
I know apache_hooks but after discussion with George and others, I
wouldn't feel comfortable recomme
> > That presents somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem. Production
sites
> > won't be compelled to make a move until PHP recommends it in some
way,
> > or if there is a killer feature that pulls people in, regardless of
the
> > perceived stability.
>
> Right, and they shouldn't. If there is no
Mike Robinson wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Hans Zaunere wrote:
That presents somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem.
Production sites won't be compelled to make a move until PHP
recommends it in some way, or if there is a killer feature
that pulls people in, regardless of the perceived stability.
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> Hans Zaunere wrote:
> > That presents somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem.
> > Production sites won't be compelled to make a move until PHP
> > recommends it in some way, or if there is a killer feature
> > that pulls people in, regardless of the perceived stability.
>
Hans Zaunere wrote:
That presents somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem. Production sites
won't be compelled to make a move until PHP recommends it in some way,
or if there is a killer feature that pulls people in, regardless of the
perceived stability.
Right, and they shouldn't. If there is no c
> > The Apache2 debate is more interesting. I am just running up a nice
new
> > AMD64, with SUSE9.1 (no 9.2 disk handy), and the first thing I find
-
> > and which does not bother me at all - ONLY Apache2 in the
distribution.
> > I KNOW all the reasons for feet dragging, and I am doing it myself
o
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Sure, but I mostly go by the number of open bugs on the handler and
filter sapis and how long they stay open. Even seemingly obvious ones
with a patch attached stay open for a while:
eg. http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=31055
Which has the fix with it - so could be applied
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Well there have been a couple of fixes there.
I didn't quite understand the vague idea that it is stable. Do you mean
we don't know it's stable? It might not be as tested as sapi/apache but
I've seen Apache 2 handler in production use on quite a few very heavily
loaded sites.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Sean Coates wrote:
> Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > Thanks. Where is the change made?
>
> New docs can be seen here:
> http://livedocs.phpdoc.info/index.php?l=en&q=install.unix.apache2
> (will update on php.net next time the manual is built (by Derick))
It's running ATM, so fastest
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Thanks. Where is the change made?
New docs can be seen here:
http://livedocs.phpdoc.info/index.php?l=en&q=install.unix.apache2
(will update on php.net next time the manual is built (by Derick))
Here's the diff (mail):
http://www.phpdoc.info/commits/1210
S
--
PHP Internals - PH
11 matches
Mail list logo
