Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:14153
Return-Path: <chip@force-elite.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 13244 invoked by uid 1010); 22 Dec 2004 06:49:19 -0000
Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 13219 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2004 06:49:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO utopia.in.force-elite.com) (216.255.199.145)
  by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 2004 06:49:19 -0000
X-AuthUser: chip@force-elite.com
Received: from [10.0.0.109] (208.57.119.248:50887)
	by utopia.in.force-elite.com with [XMail 1.17 (Linux/Ix86) ESMTP Server]
	id <S89F3E> for <internals@lists.php.net> from <chip@force-elite.com>;
	Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:49:16 -0800
Message-ID: <41C918EB.5060603@force-elite.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:49:15 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Brodersen <php@ter.dk>
CC: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>,  internals@lists.php.net
References: <cq6n64$cgb$1@sea.gmane.org> <000601c4e6d2$6bda0f30$0100a8c0@pc07653> <41C74D41.7060608@lerdorf.com> <20041220222248.49013.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0412210019080.13989@localhost> <gomhs0hii8ncrinjbumu2296i6ak4gspp9@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <gomhs0hii8ncrinjbumu2296i6ak4gspp9@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Why we =?windows-1252?Q?don=92t_like_PHP_/?=
From: chip@force-elite.com (Paul Querna)

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 FAQ mentions, Apache2 is a complete rewrite  [..snip..]

Sort of, Kind of, in some ways, yes. In other ways, it is not anything 
like a 'complete rewrite'.

> 
> I don't think it makes any sense to discourage Apache2 just because
> the reason is that the developers have more experience with Apache1.
> Just think of Apache2 as "Yet another webserver" (where the
> installation-notes would just mention that it has to run in
> prefork-mode)

Sounds logical to me.

> [a bit offtopic: I really miss the ProxyPreserveHost directive in
> Apache1, but I suppose that I and other developers just use some
> /etc/hosts-workaround if multiple domains has to be proxypassed to the
> same internal webserver. Not all administrators are able to perform
> these kind of stunts, though, so I guess that this just doesn't seem
> as much of a problem for those people with full root access to the
> entire system]
> 

Am I missing something?

http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/mod_proxy.html#proxypreservehost

I haven't seen any specific complaints out of this entire conversation, 
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.

-Paul