Unmaintained SAPIs

14 years ago by johannes@schlueters.de — view source — reply

unread

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

14 years ago by Sanford Whiteman — view source — reply

unread

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

14 years ago by Pierre Joye — view source — reply

unread

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
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

--

--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org

14 years ago by Rasmus Lerdorf — view source — reply

unread

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

14 years ago by Pierre Joye — view source — reply

unread

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

14 years ago by Julien Pauli — view source — reply

unread

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

14 years ago by johannes@schlueters.de — view source — reply

unread

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

14 years ago by Julien Pauli — view source — reply

unread

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

14 years ago by Uwe Schindler — view source — reply

unread

Hi,

I am fine with the list! The SAPIs listed for dropping have serious problems
because they were not updated (some $_SERVER vars missing, authentication
probs,...), making them unuseable with common applications.

I just wanted to confirm, that I take care of NSAPI, this is working fine.
On the other hand I am not sure what is happening to SJSWS since Oracle took
control on Sun [I will open issue and commit a fix to this one in near
future, because it has an inconsistency with $_SERVER['HTTPS'] in comparison
to Apache].

Uwe

Uwe Schindler
thetaphi@php.net - http://www.php.net
NSAPI SAPI developer
Bremen, Germany

-----Original Message-----
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:49 AM
To: Johannes Schlüter
Cc: PHP internals list
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Unmaintained SAPIs

apache_hooks

We can drop apache_hooks as well. I think I was the only one ever to use
it.

-Rasmus