Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:1756 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 39419 invoked from network); 20 May 2003 02:49:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.zend.com) (192.117.235.230) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 May 2003 02:49:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 32218 invoked from network); 20 May 2003 02:49:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO zeev-laptop.zend.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 May 2003 02:49:02 -0000 Reply-To: zeev@zend.com Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030520054315.04188e28@localhost> X-Sender: zeev@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 05:48:38 +0300 To: Sascha Schumann Cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030520042349.06012040@localhost> <5.1.0.14.2.20030520042349.06012040@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] fd patch From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) At 05:32 20/05/2003, Sascha Schumann wrote: >On Tue, 20 May 2003, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > Just a last heads up before the release here. Do we really want this patch > > in? I think that it was put in a bug-fix release in a rather hasty manner, > > with no real reason. We've already experienced one crash, there may be > > others - it's a very central piece of code. > > Yes, it is indeed very central and that is the reason why the > old code caused so much trouble for a long, long time. It definitely wasn't too much trouble, there was next to no complaints about it. > It > fixes a nasty limitation on an important platform. Certain > SAPI modules like NSAPI, AOLserver, Apache 2 and thttpd are > severely affected by this issue - they are basically useless > on Solaris. Most of these SAPIs have been basically useless on all operating systems until recently. Most of them are still not considered stable for production use because of other threading issues. Despite this long list of SAPIs, Apache 1.x SAPI users far outnumber the users of these SAPIs. I had no doubt that you'd defend the introduction of this patch, you wouldn't have introduced it otherwise. I'm more interested in hearing what other people think, as I think they weren't made aware of the scope of the problem and the risks involved. Zeev