Hi,
we have quite a few SAPIs where I expect that nobody looked at them for
years. Anybody objects from dropping them from trunk? This brings less
stuff to document and less confusion for users.
I suggest dropping:
aolserver
caudium
continuity
milter
phttpd
pi3web
roxen
thttpd
tux
webjames
I'm not sure about:
apache_hooks
apache2filter
isapi (is FastCGI now preferred on Win?)
That leaves:
apache
apache2handler
cgi
cli
embed
fpm
litespeed
nsapi
johannes
isapi (is FastCGI now preferred on Win?)
Pls don't remove ISAPI, as it still workswindofor 5.3 even if
deprecated. We still use it as part of third-party x64 Windows builds.
-- Sandy
hi,
Do we really need apache 1.x SAPIs?
ISAPI should be kept in (was decided so by the 5.3.0 release time), it
is still used and works for users with custom versions. A new version
may come as well, as part of one of some features I'm working on.
2011/4/23 Johannes Schlüter johannes@schlueters.de:
Hi,
we have quite a few SAPIs where I expect that nobody looked at them for
years. Anybody objects from dropping them from trunk? This brings less stuff
to document and less confusion for users.I suggest dropping:
aolserver
caudium
continuity
milter
phttpd
pi3web
roxen
thttpd
tux
webjamesI'm not sure about:
apache_hooks
apache2filter
isapi (is FastCGI now preferred on Win?)That leaves:
apache
apache2handler
cgi
cli
embed
fpm
litespeed
nsapijohannes
--
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
hi,
Do we really need apache 1.x SAPIs?
ISAPI should be kept in (was decided so by the 5.3.0 release time), it
is still used and works for users with custom versions. A new version
may come as well, as part of one of some features I'm working on.
Your argument for ISAPI applies exactly to Apache 1 as well.
-Rasmus
2011/4/24 Rasmus Lerdorf rasmus@lerdorf.com:
hi,
Do we really need apache 1.x SAPIs?
ISAPI should be kept in (was decided so by the 5.3.0 release time), it
is still used and works for users with custom versions. A new version
may come as well, as part of one of some features I'm working on.Your argument for ISAPI applies exactly to Apache 1 as well.
Not that it is so important (does not hurt anyone to keep it in) but
apache 1.x is dead, not IIS :).
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
I'm +1 with that list.
I'd like to have some time to work on a lighttpd sapi if possible (haven't
seen lighttpd API yet). If someone got the same idea, just tell it...
What about apache2filter SAPI ?
Julien.P
2011/4/24 Pierre Joye pierre.php@gmail.com
2011/4/24 Rasmus Lerdorf rasmus@lerdorf.com:
hi,
Do we really need apache 1.x SAPIs?
ISAPI should be kept in (was decided so by the 5.3.0 release time), it
is still used and works for users with custom versions. A new version
may come as well, as part of one of some features I'm working on.Your argument for ISAPI applies exactly to Apache 1 as well.
Not that it is so important (does not hurt anyone to keep it in) but
apache 1.x is dead, not IIS :).Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
I'm +1 with that list.
I'd like to have some time to work on a lighttpd sapi if possible
(haven't seen lighttpd API yet). If someone got the same idea, just
tell it...
lighty's API for that is FastCGI. There is an native API, but plugging
in PHP there would be bad in regards to lighty's event-based
architecture.
What about apache2filter SAPI ?
What what? I didn't here from people who are using or maintaining it ...
so it's on the "i don't know" list.
johannes
Julien.P
2011/4/24 Pierre Joye pierre.php@gmail.com
2011/4/24 Rasmus Lerdorf rasmus@lerdorf.com:
>
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> Do we really need apache 1.x SAPIs?
>>
>> ISAPI should be kept in (was decided so by the 5.3.0
release time), it
>> is still used and works for users with custom versions. A
new version
>> may come as well, as part of one of some features I'm
working on.
>
> Your argument for ISAPI applies exactly to Apache 1 as well.Not that it is so important (does not hurt anyone to keep it in) but apache 1.x is dead, not IIS :). Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
All right ;-)
Johannes: Thanks for details about lighhtpd's internals.
Julien.P
2011/4/27 Johannes Schlüter johannes@schlueters.de
I'm +1 with that list.
I'd like to have some time to work on a lighttpd sapi if possible
(haven't seen lighttpd API yet). If someone got the same idea, just
tell it...lighty's API for that is FastCGI. There is an native API, but plugging
in PHP there would be bad in regards to lighty's event-based
architecture.What about apache2filter SAPI ?
What what? I didn't here from people who are using or maintaining it ...
so it's on the "i don't know" list.johannes
Julien.P
2011/4/24 Pierre Joye pierre.php@gmail.com
2011/4/24 Rasmus Lerdorf rasmus@lerdorf.com:
>
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> Do we really need apache 1.x SAPIs?
>>
>> ISAPI should be kept in (was decided so by the 5.3.0
release time), it
>> is still used and works for users with custom versions. A
new version
>> may come as well, as part of one of some features I'm
working on.
>
> Your argument for ISAPI applies exactly to Apache 1 as well.Not that it is so important (does not hurt anyone to keep it in) but apache 1.x is dead, not IIS :). Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org