http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4117711.stm
Not exactly a ringing endorsement ;-)
--Wez.
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:14:31 +0100, Jochem Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> phpbb (if nothing else, a well known app in php-land) state in their
> changelog:
>
> "running phpBB 2.0.x with PHP5 is not
- Original Message -
From: "Jochem Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Wez Furlong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Why we don’t like PHP / PHP’s anti-Apache2 FUD
> completely off-topic: I just
Jochem Maas wrote:
the point
stands that php5 also gets unproductive coverage, and both camps working
together make a much greater force against any FUD.
Any new release that in some situations breaks backwards compatibility
will get some negative press. Ultimately, in successful products a poin
Wez Furlong wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4117711.stm
Not exactly a ringing endorsement ;-)
lol. not at all surprising (I'm familiar with their code). but the point
stands that php5 also gets unproductive coverage, and both camps working
together make a much greater force against a
I'd like to invite all the folks who have been posting in this thread
who lament PHPs support (or partial lack there of) for Apache 2 to dig
into the SAPI and improve it. Open source is driven by both personal
interest and project momentum, and I'm sure if you all start
contributing improvemen
it may be worth noting that the percieved sentiment towards apache2
(as compared to apache) by the php 'crowd' (and others), is something
that php5 may very well be suffering from itself:
phpbb (if nothing else, a well known app in php-land) state in their
changelog:
"running phpBB 2.0.x with P
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
The warning and FAQ entry was written quite a while ago. I have updated
it now to just talk about threading issues and that people should stick
to the prefork MPM, at least on Unix systems.
Look forward to it rippling through the mirrors. Thanks.
--
Lester Caine
---
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Hi,
I've got to say that I have seen quite a few very heavily loaded sites
using Apache 2 pre-fork and PHP. Although we have had a few bugs in the
past few months in the Apache 2 SAPI I think it's quite stable today,
and some of those bugs wouldn't have affected many people.
Paul Querna wrote:
just a general feeling that it isn't tested as much. As one of the
Apache Developers, I would be happy to help with any issues PHP has in
its Apache 2 SAPI.
I think that's an offer the PHP community should accept ;-)
- Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing Li
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:49:15 -0600, in php.internals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Querna) wrote:
>> [a bit offtopic: I really miss the ProxyPreserveHost directive in
>> Apache1, but I suppose that I and other developers just use some
[..]
>Am I missing something?
>
>http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod
Peter Brodersen wrote:
I haven't Netcrafted for the numbers, but I reckon there are more
Apache2-prefork with PHP out there in production than Caudium-servers
running PHP. If this is the case, how can we discourage people from
running one specific webserver, but not all the other webservers? As
the
Hi,
I've got to say that I have seen quite a few very heavily loaded sites
using Apache 2 pre-fork and PHP. Although we have had a few bugs in the
past few months in the Apache 2 SAPI I think it's quite stable today, and
some of those bugs wouldn't have affected many people. It's definitely
ge
Peter Brodersen wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:19:50 +0100 (CET), in php.internals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derick Rethans) wrote:
Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the
current version provides us with all we need?
To sum the current webpages up (under the unix-install-page
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:19:50 +0100 (CET), in php.internals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derick Rethans) wrote:
>Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the
>current version provides us with all we need?
To sum the current webpages up (under the unix-install-page):
"Installation und
Lester Caine wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
If I am in the minority I don't mind suggesting people use Apache2,
but we
need a bunch of PHP developers to stand up and say they are using
Apache2-prefork in large production systems.
http://www.lulu.com/
This is a heavy load site, and somewhere else th
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
If I am in the minority I don't mind suggesting people use Apache2, but we
need a bunch of PHP developers to stand up and say they are using
Apache2-prefork in large production systems.
I've never used anything else on all my sites, along with PHP5 starting
pre-release, beca
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Lester Caine wrote:
> 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 drag
;)
I wrote the first Apache module version of PHP in 1995 though.
-Rasmus
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > actually researching why something is a certain way. There was a time
> > when there was no AddHandler directive. Addtype was the way you did
>
On Dec 20, 2004, at 8:44 PM, Gareth Ardron wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
At some point you'll have to face it: Apache 2 is becoming a popular
"platform". It's obviously up to you at what point you'll consider
this important enough to spend time on it but a reality check every
so often is nev
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
actually researching why something is a certain way. There was a time
when there was no AddHandler directive. Addtype was the way you did
According to the Apache documentation AddHandler appeared in Apache 1.1.
I'm impressed with your memory, it's better than the memory o
OpenSource being what it is (e.g.: "get your finger out"), it seems to
me like we will get stable Apache 2 support when someone knowledgeable
in the Apache 2 guts sits down and does the work.
We don't have any resident Apache 2 experts (e.g.: we've established
that 1.3 works fine for us in our bus
George Schlossnagle wrote:
At some point you'll have to face it: Apache 2 is becoming a popular
"platform". It's obviously up to you at what point you'll consider
this important enough to spend time on it but a reality check every
so often is never a bad thing.
Not to sound overly American, but
Hello,
Christian Schneider wrote:
Because more and more people want to run Apache 2 for different reasons?
Other modules support! Many new modules are written with the Apache 2
API and I can't use them because I want to keep running Apache 1.3. But
I can surely see why some want to switch.
At so
On Dec 20, 2004, at 8:05 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the
current version provides us with all we need?
Because more and more people want to run Apache 2 for different
reasons?
According to your argument PHP w
Derick Rethans wrote:
Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the
current version provides us with all we need?
Because more and more people want to run Apache 2 for different reasons?
According to your argument PHP would only need to support one single OS
and Webserver bec
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Lester Caine wrote:
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,
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Lester Caine wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > Like with most of the criticisms along these lines, they don't
> > bother actually researching why something is a certain way. There
> > was a time when there was no AddHandler directive. Addtype was the
> > way you did this.
I would personally consider Rich Bowen an authority on the subject,
and as such trust what he is saying as true.
paul
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:28:09 -, Nuno Lopes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is the AddType stuff true?
>
> If yes, I can change the docs to AddHandler..
>
> Nuno
>
> - Or
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Like with most of the criticisms along these lines, they don't bother
actually researching why something is a certain way. There was a time
when there was no AddHandler directive. Addtype was the way you did
this. Since AddType works with every version of Apache I never
Like with most of the criticisms along these lines, they don't bother
actually researching why something is a certain way. There was a time
when there was no AddHandler directive. Addtype was the way you did
this. Since AddType works with every version of Apache I never saw a
reason to chang
Is the AddType stuff true?
If yes, I can change the docs to AddHandler..
Nuno
- Original Message -
From: "Sebastian Bergmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:21 PM
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Why we don’t like PHP / PHP’s
Via PlanetApache:
- http://drbacchus.com/wordpress/index.php?p=843
- http://drbacchus.com/wordpress/index.php?p=844
Season's Greetings,
Sebastian
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514
32 matches
Mail list logo
