Mailing List Archive: Apache: Dev

simple MPM requires apr-trunk

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

jim at jaguNET

Oct 1, 2009, 6:11 AM

Post #1 of 9 (698 views)
Permalink

simple MPM requires apr-trunk

So, what do we want to say is our earliest version of APR required
for trunk (and 2.4)??

I'd like for us to really start looking at getting 2.4 out, but that
means some APR dependencies, esp if we want Simple to be viable for
lots of people.

minfrin at sharp

Oct 1, 2009, 6:15 AM

Post #2 of 9 (662 views)
Permalink

Re: simple MPM requires apr-trunk [In reply to]

Jim Jagielski wrote:

> So, what do we want to say is our earliest version of APR required
> for trunk (and 2.4)??
>
> I'd like for us to really start looking at getting 2.4 out, but that
> means some APR dependencies, esp if we want Simple to be viable for
> lots of people.

The session stuff needs at least APR v1.4.

Regards,
Graham
--

Attachments:

smime.p7s (3.22 KB)

jim at jaguNET

Oct 1, 2009, 7:00 AM

Post #3 of 9 (662 views)
Permalink

Re: simple MPM requires apr-trunk [In reply to]

On Oct 1, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> So, what do we want to say is our earliest version of APR required
>> for trunk (and 2.4)??
>>
>> I'd like for us to really start looking at getting 2.4 out, but that
>> means some APR dependencies, esp if we want Simple to be viable for
>> lots of people.
>
> The session stuff needs at least APR v1.4.
>

Yeah, but do we want to require 1.4, which means backporting the
pollcb stuff, or do we want to require 2.0, which means httpd 2.4
will be pushed out even further...?

minfrin at sharp

Oct 1, 2009, 7:18 AM

Post #4 of 9 (663 views)
Permalink

Re: simple MPM requires apr-trunk [In reply to]

Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Yeah, but do we want to require 1.4, which means backporting the
> pollcb stuff, or do we want to require 2.0, which means httpd 2.4
> will be pushed out even further...?

I'd say backport the pollcb stuff. httpd v2.3.x alphas are out the door,
while apr v2.x alphas aren't.

Regards,
Graham
--

Attachments:

smime.p7s (3.22 KB)

trawick at gmail

Oct 1, 2009, 8:03 AM

Post #5 of 9 (660 views)
Permalink

Re: simple MPM requires apr-trunk [In reply to]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim [at] jagunet> wrote:

> So, what do we want to say is our earliest version of APR required
> for trunk (and 2.4)??
>
> I'd like for us to really start looking at getting 2.4 out, but that
> means some APR dependencies, esp if we want Simple to be viable for
> lots of people.
>

The minimal APR-trunk code in Simple is a run-time mechanism to check for
the required pollset capabilities. It is nicer in some respects than a
configure-time check since there's no proper APR check available during
configure, but it isn't worth requiring a certain level of APR for httpd so
that this check will work.

trawick at gmail

Oct 1, 2009, 8:09 AM

Post #6 of 9 (662 views)
Permalink

Re: simple MPM requires apr-trunk [In reply to]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin [at] sharp> wrote:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but do we want to require 1.4, which means backporting the
> > pollcb stuff, or do we want to require 2.0, which means httpd 2.4
> > will be pushed out even further...?
>
> I'd say backport the pollcb stuff. httpd v2.3.x alphas are out the door,
> while apr v2.x alphas aren't.
>

I generally agree with backporting pollcb to apr 1.4.x, as long as there is
interest in supporting Simple as a production MPM in the 2.4.x timeframe (no
idea here of the status of Simple).

trawick at gmail

Oct 1, 2009, 8:14 AM

Post #7 of 9 (663 views)
Permalink

Re: simple MPM requires apr-trunk [In reply to]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jeff Trawick <trawick [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin [at] sharp> wrote:
>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, but do we want to require 1.4, which means backporting the
>> > pollcb stuff, or do we want to require 2.0, which means httpd 2.4
>> > will be pushed out even further...?
>>
>> I'd say backport the pollcb stuff. httpd v2.3.x alphas are out the door,
>> while apr v2.x alphas aren't.
>>
>
> I generally agree with backporting pollcb to apr 1.4.x
>

you guys are confusing me ;)

pollcb is in 1.3.x even; AFAIK it is just APR_POLLSET_NODEFAULT that simple
wants from later APR

jim at jaguNET

Oct 1, 2009, 12:10 PM

Post #8 of 9 (656 views)
Permalink

Re: simple MPM requires apr-trunk [In reply to]

On Oct 1, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jeff Trawick <trawick [at] gmail>
> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin [at] sharp>
> wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but do we want to require 1.4, which means backporting the
> > pollcb stuff, or do we want to require 2.0, which means httpd 2.4
> > will be pushed out even further...?
>
> I'd say backport the pollcb stuff. httpd v2.3.x alphas are out the
> door,
> while apr v2.x alphas aren't.
>
> I generally agree with backporting pollcb to apr 1.4.x
>
> you guys are confusing me ;)
>
> pollcb is in 1.3.x even; AFAIK it is just APR_POLLSET_NODEFAULT that
> simple wants from later APR
>

It's this:

int good_methods[] = {APR_POLLSET_KQUEUE, APR_POLLSET_PORT,
APR_POLLSET_EPOLL};

and the use of apr_pollcb_create_ex()

trawick at gmail

Oct 1, 2009, 12:21 PM

Post #9 of 9 (654 views)
Permalink

Re: simple MPM requires apr-trunk [In reply to]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim [at] jagunet> wrote:

>
> On Oct 1, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jeff Trawick <trawick [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin [at] sharp> wrote:
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, but do we want to require 1.4, which means backporting the
>> > pollcb stuff, or do we want to require 2.0, which means httpd 2.4
>> > will be pushed out even further...?
>>
>> I'd say backport the pollcb stuff. httpd v2.3.x alphas are out the door,
>> while apr v2.x alphas aren't.
>>
>> I generally agree with backporting pollcb to apr 1.4.x
>>
>> you guys are confusing me ;)
>>
>> pollcb is in 1.3.x even; AFAIK it is just APR_POLLSET_NODEFAULT that
>> simple wants from later APR
>>
>>
>
> It's this:
>
> int good_methods[] = {APR_POLLSET_KQUEUE, APR_POLLSET_PORT,
> APR_POLLSET_EPOLL};
>
> and the use of apr_pollcb_create_ex()
>
> yeah

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads