Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » Why we don’t like PHP / PHP’s anti-Apache2 FUD »

Why we don’t like PHP / PHP’s anti-Apache2 FUD

php.internals

Sebastian Bergmann

21 years ago
Via PlanetApache: - http://drbacchus.com/wordpress/index.php?p=843 - http://drbacchus.com/wordpress/index.php?p=844 Season's Greetings, Sebastian
-- Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/ GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69

Nuno Lopes

21 years ago
Is the AddType stuff true? If yes, I can change the docs to AddHandler.. Nuno ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sebastian Bergmann" <sb@sebastian-bergmann.de> To: <internals@lists.php.net> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:21 PM Subject: [PHP-DEV] Why we don’t like PHP / PHP’s anti-Apache2 FUD

Rasmus Lerdorf

21 years ago
Like with most of the criticisms along these lines, they don't bother actually researching why something is a certain way. There was a time when there was no AddHandler directive. Addtype was the way you did this. Since AddType works with every version of Apache I never saw a reason to change this even after AddHandler was added since it is purely academic in nature. -Rasmus Nuno Lopes wrote:

Lester Caine

21 years ago
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Like with most of the criticisms along these lines, they don't bother > actually researching why something is a certain way. There was a time > when there was no AddHandler directive. Addtype was the way you did > this. Since AddType works with every version of Apache I never saw a > reason to change this even after AddHandler was added since it is purely > academic in nature.
I think that is a minor matter anyway, my own installation notes follow old practices, but it is about time that I tidied them up. The Apache2 debate is more interesting. I am just running up a nice new AMD64, with SUSE9.1 (no 9.2 disk handy), and the first thing I find - and which does not bother me at all - ONLY Apache2 in the distribution. I KNOW all the reasons for feet dragging, and I am doing it myself over VCL/Win32 and Microsoft's latest 'standards', but at some point we will all have to give in an move on. Is now not the time at least to start treating Apache2 as a current version, and start looking into the problems?
-- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

Derick Rethans

21 years ago
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Lester Caine wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > Like with most of the criticisms along these lines, they don't > > bother actually researching why something is a certain way. There > > was a time when there was no AddHandler directive. Addtype was the > > way you did this. Since AddType works with every version of Apache > > I never saw a reason to change this even after AddHandler was added > > since it is purely academic in nature. > > I think that is a minor matter anyway, my own installation notes > follow old practices, but it is about time that I tidied them up. > > The Apache2 debate is more interesting. I am just running up a nice > new AMD64, with SUSE9.1 (no 9.2 disk handy), and the first thing I > find - and which does not bother me at all - ONLY Apache2 in the > distribution. I KNOW all the reasons for feet dragging, and I am > doing it myself over VCL/Win32 and Microsoft's latest 'standards', but > at some point we will all have to give in an move on. Is now not the > time at least to start treating Apache2 as a current version, and > start looking into the problems?
Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the current version provides us with all we need? Derick
-- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

Christian Schneider

21 years ago
Derick Rethans wrote:
> Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the > current version provides us with all we need?
Because more and more people want to run Apache 2 for different reasons? According to your argument PHP would only need to support one single OS and Webserver because "it provides all we need". At some point you'll have to face it: Apache 2 is becoming a popular "platform". It's obviously up to you at what point you'll consider this important enough to spend time on it but a reality check every so often is never a bad thing. - Chris

George Schlossnagle

21 years ago
On Dec 20, 2004, at 8:05 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Derick Rethans wrote: >> Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the >> current version provides us with all we need? > > Because more and more people want to run Apache 2 for different > reasons? > > According to your argument PHP would only need to support one single > OS and Webserver because "it provides all we need". > > At some point you'll have to face it: Apache 2 is becoming a popular > "platform". It's obviously up to you at what point you'll consider > this important enough to spend time on it but a reality check every so > often is never a bad thing.
Not to sound overly American, but isn't this the sort of thing that's just worked out by market forces? When enough people want the apache2 sapi to be production quality, then eventually someone will become interested enough to do the work. George

Gareth Ardron

21 years ago
George Schlossnagle wrote:
>> At some point you'll have to face it: Apache 2 is becoming a popular >> "platform". It's obviously up to you at what point you'll consider >> this important enough to spend time on it but a reality check every >> so often is never a bad thing. > > Not to sound overly American, but isn't this the sort of thing that's > just worked out by market forces? When enough people want the apache2 > sapi to be production quality, then eventually someone will become > interested enough to do the work.
But isn't that exactly what is happening at the moment ? Personally, I like apache 1.3.x. I like the way it does things, and it suits me down to the ground - but I can't ignore the fact that both redhat and suse are shipping with apache2 by default. Hell, even debian testing is apache2 by default now - and you all know how long debian take to pick up on something. However, distributions are forcing this change no matter what people may or may not prefer. As such, rather than play catch-up when everything else fully supports apache2, doesn't it make sense to pre-empt that move towards a new sapi and make sure that php plays properly with apache2. I only suggest this because otherwise I see it putting people off php in the future. Put it this way, if you have a choice between php and perl, pretty similar in ease-to-learn and perl works properly with apache2 and php doesn't, which one are you going to pick ? But that's just my 2c.
-- Gareth Ardron

George Schlossnagle

21 years ago
On Dec 20, 2004, at 8:44 PM, Gareth Ardron wrote:
> George Schlossnagle wrote: > >>> At some point you'll have to face it: Apache 2 is becoming a popular >>> "platform". It's obviously up to you at what point you'll consider >>> this important enough to spend time on it but a reality check every >>> so often is never a bad thing. >> >> Not to sound overly American, but isn't this the sort of thing that's >> just worked out by market forces? When enough people want the >> apache2 sapi to be production quality, then eventually someone will >> become interested enough to do the work. > > > But isn't that exactly what is happening at the moment ?
No, Rich Bowen just chose to bitch about PHP. If he's secretly making improvements to the Apache 2 SAPI, then I'll eat my words and apologize in full. George

Wez Furlong

21 years ago
OpenSource being what it is (e.g.: "get your finger out"), it seems to me like we will get stable Apache 2 support when someone knowledgeable in the Apache 2 guts sits down and does the work. We don't have any resident Apache 2 experts (e.g.: we've established that 1.3 works fine for us in our busy professional lives), and the two Apache guys that offered to do the work haven't been around lately (fair play; everyone has plenty of other things to do with their free time). If a senior/knowledgeable Apache guy wants to moan about FUD, perhaps he could divert his efforts into making it work, rather than contributing to bad-vibe-slime (queue walking Statue of Liberty and feel-good music). --Wez. PS: that last paragraph is supposed to be funny, not bitchy. On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:19:15 -0500, George Schlossnagle <george@omniti.com> wrote:

Olivier Hill

21 years ago
Hello, Christian Schneider wrote:
> > Because more and more people want to run Apache 2 for different reasons?
Other modules support! Many new modules are written with the Apache 2 API and I can't use them because I want to keep running Apache 1.3. But I can surely see why some want to switch.
> At some point you'll have to face it: Apache 2 is becoming a popular > "platform". It's obviously up to you at what point you'll consider this > important enough to spend time on it but a reality check every so often > is never a bad thing.
I just don't see why we cannot add a warning saying: "If you want to use Apache 2, please switch to prefork as you might (and might) have bugs with threads". This is exactly the same kind of warning when you try to compile Perl with threads on Gentoo. Speaking of Gentoo.. I wrote the docs a while ago on "How to install PHP on Gentoo" in the manual claiming to use Apache 1.3. Would it be safe to add an Apache 2.0 section claiming that it can be used as long as it's in prefork mode? I don't want to be flamed by either side ;) On a personnal taste, I have no urges to switch to Apache 2, since 1.3 is proven stability and I know the limitations of the API. But perhaps 2.0 should be given a go and not marked as "Experimental" anymore. Is there any problems when using prefork or am I missing the big picture? Sincerely, Olivier

Peter Brodersen

21 years ago
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:19:50 +0100 (CET), in php.internals derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:
>Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the >current version provides us with all we need?
To sum the current webpages up (under the unix-install-page): "Installation under Apache1? Okay, note that.." "Installation under fhttpd? Okay, note that.." "Installation under Caudium? Okay, note that.." "Installation under Sun Java System Web Server? Okay, note that.." "Installation under Sun ONE Web Server? Okay, note that.." "Installation under iPlanet? Okay, note that.." "Installation under Netscape server? Okay, note that.." .. but "Installation under Apache2? NOT IN PRODUCTION!" I suppose the question is rather why we ask people not to use Apache 2.0.x and PHP in a production environment (as mentioned at http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.unix.apache2.php ), instead of just recommending using Apache2-prefork, if people really want to use Apache2. After all, the page with the warning is about is how a Apache2-user installs PHP, not "What webserver do you recommend". If that really was the case, why don't we have the same disclaimer at the fhttpd-page, the Caudium-page and the Sun, iPlanet and Netscape-page (all mentioned at http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.unix.php )? 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 and might as such be considered as a whole different webserver than Apache, just as Caudium, fhttpd, et cetera. 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) [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]
-- - Peter Brodersen

Lukas Smith

21 years ago
Peter Brodersen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:19:50 +0100 (CET), in php.internals > derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote: > > >>Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the >>current version provides us with all we need? > > > To sum the current webpages up (under the unix-install-page): > > "Installation under Apache1? Okay, note that.." > "Installation under fhttpd? Okay, note that.." > "Installation under Caudium? Okay, note that.." > "Installation under Sun Java System Web Server? Okay, note that.." > "Installation under Sun ONE Web Server? Okay, note that.." > "Installation under iPlanet? Okay, note that.." > "Installation under Netscape server? Okay, note that.." > .. but > "Installation under Apache2? NOT IN PRODUCTION!"
the notice is there for apache2 because there is a significant number of people that might get burned and complain if its not there. people from the various other webservers know that they are not the main target platform. regards, Lukas

Paul Querna

21 years ago
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

Peter Brodersen

21 years ago
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:49:15 -0600, in php.internals chip@force-elite.com (Paul Querna) wrote:
>> [a bit offtopic: I really miss the ProxyPreserveHost directive in >> Apache1, but I suppose that I and other developers just use some
[..]
>Am I missing something? > >http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/mod_proxy.html#proxypreservehost
I miss it in Apache1 :) That feature is pushing me towards Apache2.
-- - Peter Brodersen

Christian Schneider

21 years ago
Paul Querna wrote:
> 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.
I think that's an offer the PHP community should accept ;-) - Chris

Andi Gutmans

21 years ago
Hi, I've got to say that I have seen quite a few very heavily loaded sites using Apache 2 pre-fork and PHP. Although we have had a few bugs in the past few months in the Apache 2 SAPI I think it's quite stable today, and some of those bugs wouldn't have affected many people. It's definitely getting a lot of testing and many Linux distros are bundling Apache 2 and PHP. Personally, I think we can drop the experimental from Apache 2 pre-fork+PHP and have a warning about using the other MPMs. I don't think we have to officially recommend any one version of Apache (we can say it works with both). Personally, I do still prefer Apache 1.3.x but the main reason is because I'm used to it and can't be bothered to move, not because I think Apache 2 is not stable. Andi

Rasmus Lerdorf

21 years ago
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Hi, > > I've got to say that I have seen quite a few very heavily loaded sites > using Apache 2 pre-fork and PHP. Although we have had a few bugs in the > past few months in the Apache 2 SAPI I think it's quite stable today, > and some of those bugs wouldn't have affected many people. It's > definitely getting a lot of testing and many Linux distros are bundling > Apache 2 and PHP. > Personally, I think we can drop the experimental from Apache 2 > pre-fork+PHP and have a warning about using the other MPMs. > > I don't think we have to officially recommend any one version of Apache > (we can say it works with both). Personally, I do still prefer Apache > 1.3.x but the main reason is because I'm used to it and can't be > bothered to move, not because I think Apache 2 is not stable.
The warning and FAQ entry was written quite a while ago. I have updated it now to just talk about threading issues and that people should stick to the prefork MPM, at least on Unix systems. -Rasmus

Lester Caine

21 years ago
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> The warning and FAQ entry was written quite a while ago. I have updated > it now to just talk about threading issues and that people should stick > to the prefork MPM, at least on Unix systems.
Look forward to it rippling through the mirrors. Thanks.
-- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

Andi Gutmans

21 years ago
At 10:06 AM 12/22/2004 -0500, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>Andi Gutmans wrote: >>Hi, >>I've got to say that I have seen quite a few very heavily loaded sites >>using Apache 2 pre-fork and PHP. Although we have had a few bugs in the >>past few months in the Apache 2 SAPI I think it's quite stable today, and >>some of those bugs wouldn't have affected many people. It's definitely >>getting a lot of testing and many Linux distros are bundling Apache 2 and PHP. >>Personally, I think we can drop the experimental from Apache 2 >>pre-fork+PHP and have a warning about using the other MPMs. >>I don't think we have to officially recommend any one version of Apache >>(we can say it works with both). Personally, I do still prefer Apache >>1.3.x but the main reason is because I'm used to it and can't be bothered >>to move, not because I think Apache 2 is not stable. > >The warning and FAQ entry was written quite a while ago. I have updated >it now to just talk about threading issues and that people should stick to >the prefork MPM, at least on Unix systems.
Thanks. Where is the change made? Do you guys want to post some statement on php.net to clarify things? I think keeping a warm fuzzy relationship with ASF is important and both projects have always been very close and supportive one another. Andi

Sean Coates

21 years ago
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Thanks. Where is the change made?
New docs can be seen here: http://livedocs.phpdoc.info/index.php?l=en&q=install.unix.apache2 (will update on php.net next time the manual is built (by Derick)) Here's the diff (mail): http://www.phpdoc.info/commits/1210 S

Derick Rethans

21 years ago
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Sean Coates wrote:
> Andi Gutmans wrote: > > Thanks. Where is the change made? > > New docs can be seen here: > http://livedocs.phpdoc.info/index.php?l=en&q=install.unix.apache2 > (will update on php.net next time the manual is built (by Derick))
It's running ATM, so fastest would be in 4 days to restart the new build. Derick
-- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

Rasmus Lerdorf

21 years ago
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Thanks. Where is the change made? Do you guys want to post some statement > on php.net to clarify things? I think keeping a warm fuzzy relationship > with ASF is important and both projects have always been very close and > supportive one another.
I made the change in the phpdoc/en tree. I hadn't realized before that someone had taken one of my mailing list emails and pasted it almost directly into the FAQ in the documentation. The changes should trickle out with the next manual build. I don't think it was a big deal before, and making a big deal of it now probably doesn't help anybody. It's not like we suddenly fixed a bunch of things in the apache2handler sapi and we only have a vague idea that it is stable. -Rasmus

Andi Gutmans

21 years ago
At 06:46 PM 12/22/2004 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>The changes should trickle out with the next manual build. I don't think >it was a big deal before, and making a big deal of it now probably doesn't >help anybody. It's not like we suddenly fixed a bunch of things in the >apache2handler sapi and we only have a vague idea that it is stable.
Well there have been a couple of fixes there. I didn't quite understand the vague idea that it is stable. Do you mean we don't know it's stable? It might not be as tested as sapi/apache but I've seen Apache 2 handler in production use on quite a few very heavily loaded sites. Andi

Rasmus Lerdorf

21 years ago
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Well there have been a couple of fixes there. > I didn't quite understand the vague idea that it is stable. Do you mean > we don't know it's stable? It might not be as tested as sapi/apache but > I've seen Apache 2 handler in production use on quite a few very heavily > loaded sites.
Sure, but I mostly go by the number of open bugs on the handler and filter sapis and how long they stay open. Even seemingly obvious ones with a patch attached stay open for a while: eg. http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=31055 or serious-sounding ones like: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=28460 which go without comment for months. I am as much to blame as everyone else of course. Similar bugs for the Apache1 sapi get fixed quickly. Until we all take the Apache2 sapis (or perhaps just focus on the handler sapi) more seriously or get outside help from people who will stick around and maintain it I don't think we should start shouting from the rooftops that our Apache2 support is now suddenly super stable. Anecdotal 3rd-party reports aside, we don't know a lot about Apache2 yet. -Rasmus

Lester Caine

21 years ago
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Sure, but I mostly go by the number of open bugs on the handler and > filter sapis and how long they stay open. Even seemingly obvious ones > with a patch attached stay open for a while: > > eg. http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=31055
Which has the fix with it - so could be applied and closed?
> or serious-sounding ones like: > http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=28460 > which go without comment for months.
These are the sorts of niggle that first of all need checking with later builds and seeing if they still apply? Oh for a few extra hours a day ;)
-- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

Dan Kalowsky

21 years ago
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Lester Caine wrote:
> The Apache2 debate is more interesting. I am just running up a nice new > AMD64, with SUSE9.1 (no 9.2 disk handy), and the first thing I find - and > which does not bother me at all - ONLY Apache2 in the distribution. I KNOW > all the reasons for feet dragging, and I am doing it myself over VCL/Win32 > and Microsoft's latest 'standards', but at some point we will all have to > give in an move on. Is now not the time at least to start treating Apache2 as > a current version, and start looking into the problems?
Although I cannot speak for extlib maintainers, our repository awaits your code submissions. I don't see any advantage to making claims of support when there are known corruption issues, and functinoality only in a "crippled" mode (for lack of a better term right now).
>---------------------------------------------------------------<
Dan Kalowsky "I thought you died alone, http://www.deadmime.org/~dank a long long time ago." dank-nom@aps-deadmime.org - "The Man Who Sold the World" kalowsky@php.net David Bowie

Rasmus Lerdorf

21 years ago
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Lester Caine wrote:
> The Apache2 debate is more interesting. I am just running up a nice new > AMD64, with SUSE9.1 (no 9.2 disk handy), and the first thing I find - > and which does not bother me at all - ONLY Apache2 in the distribution. > I KNOW all the reasons for feet dragging, and I am doing it myself over > VCL/Win32 and Microsoft's latest 'standards', but at some point we will > all have to give in an move on. Is now not the time at least to start > treating Apache2 as a current version, and start looking into the problems?
What problems? Threading will never be fixed in the large hundreds of 3rd-party library sense. So there is nothing to fix there. The only question is whether we start recommending Apache2-prefork over Apache1. As far as I am concerned we start doing that when a majority of main PHP developers switch to Apache2-prefork. Personally I am completely unmotivated to make that change because I have a boatload of other modules written against the Apache1 API that I would need to port to Apache2 and there just isn't a killer feature in Apache2 that warrants doing all that work for me at this point and Apache1 works fine. There isn't that much for a web server to do. We just need a simple working server. If I am in the minority I don't mind suggesting people use Apache2, but we need a bunch of PHP developers to stand up and say they are using Apache2-prefork in large production systems. It has never been a matter of not liking Apache2 or having some irrational bias against it, it is purely a matter of what we use and what we know. If someone reports a problem with PHP running under Apache1 we know how to fix that. For other servers, including Apache2, the pool of people familiar enough with it to provide decent support is much smaller. The documentation should probably be changed to better reflect that and make it sound less negative towards Apache2. My personal view is that the bucket brigade API in Apache2 is unneccesarily complex and quirky and we mostly have to defeat it anyway with PHP so it doesn't add anything for us. It just gets in the way. There are a few exceptions to that, but not enough for me to be worth the complexity and the overhead. -Rasmus

Lester Caine

21 years ago
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> If I am in the minority I don't mind suggesting people use Apache2, but we > need a bunch of PHP developers to stand up and say they are using > Apache2-prefork in large production systems.
I've never used anything else on all my sites, along with PHP5 starting pre-release, because I did not want to have both 4 and 5 in the field, and the first release was then due any day. I've never seen a problem which could be blamed on Apache or PHP. (now windows and terminal server is another matter ;) )
> It has never been a matter > of not liking Apache2 or having some irrational bias against it, it is > purely a matter of what we use and what we know. If someone reports a > problem with PHP running under Apache1 we know how to fix that. For other > servers, including Apache2, the pool of people familiar enough with it to > provide decent support is much smaller. The documentation should probably > be changed to better reflect that and make it sound less negative towards > Apache2.
Personally that is all *I* am after. When I tell a customer that we are running Apache2 and PHP *THEY* comment on that every time. Fortunately they are also knowledgeable enough to know that we would not want to run Apache1 on their windows machines :) Unfortunately the knowledgeable ones aren't able to convince their bosses that Linux on the servers would be much better anyway.
> My personal view is that the bucket brigade API in Apache2 is > unneccesarily complex and quirky and we mostly have to defeat it anyway > with PHP so it doesn't add anything for us. It just gets in the way. > There are a few exceptions to that, but not enough for me to be worth the > complexity and the overhead.
So we need to hassle the Apache people for some more support so that the FUD can at least be reduced. I totally understand the motivation to stay with something that is working, and the hyped follow ons - I'm still running W98SE on the display controllers because there is no need for anything slower, and they will not let me run Linux. Newer in many cases is most definitely not better (Anybody actually use XP ;) ). Some people are no doubt saying PHP5 is not better than PHP4? But unfortunately while people are dropping support for the 'good' versions and moving the goal posts, we have to try and keep up with the target :( The question was "What problems?" - is the answer - "Don't really know?". Perhaps some of those who keep complaining that Apache2/PHP does not work could start listing where it breaks for them, so at least those of us who are not having problems at present know where else to avoid?
-- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

Lester Caine

21 years ago
Lester Caine wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >> If I am in the minority I don't mind suggesting people use Apache2, >> but we >> need a bunch of PHP developers to stand up and say they are using >> Apache2-prefork in large production systems.
http://www.lulu.com/ This is a heavy load site, and somewhere else that runs Apache2 on RH9 and Fedora 2 - I think it's still PHP4 though. Should we be perhaps building a better view of who IS running what? Most of my spare time is tied up with PHPEclipse, TikiPro, and other projects that rely on PHP (and Firebird), otherwise I would step in and start looking at things myself. One of the reasons I went with PHP was the range of targets - it's one of the good points - so lets not spoil things by restricting that range. Still my AMD64 Linux machine is now running, so perhaps I can start playing with PHP code as well as applications. Anybody got a build environment for Eclipse?
-- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

Christian Schneider

21 years ago
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> actually researching why something is a certain way. There was a time > when there was no AddHandler directive. Addtype was the way you did
According to the Apache documentation AddHandler appeared in Apache 1.1. I'm impressed with your memory, it's better than the memory of <http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://apache.org> which reaches back to Apache 1.1.1 Oct 28 1996; PHP 3 was released June 6 1998. Who wants to break with decade old traditions? PS: No, I refuse to explain that this is supposed to be funny (-:C - Chris

Rasmus Lerdorf

21 years ago
;) I wrote the first Apache module version of PHP in 1995 though. -Rasmus On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Christian Schneider wrote:

Paul Reinheimer

21 years ago
I would personally consider Rich Bowen an authority on the subject, and as such trust what he is saying as true. paul On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:28:09 -0000, Nuno Lopes <nlopess@php.net> wrote:
> Is the AddType stuff true? > > If yes, I can change the docs to AddHandler.. > > Nuno > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sebastian Bergmann" <sb@sebastian-bergmann.de> > To: <internals@lists.php.net> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:21 PM > Subject: [PHP-DEV] Why we don't like PHP / PHP's anti-Apache2 FUD > > > Via PlanetApache: > > > > - http://drbacchus.com/wordpress/index.php?p=843 > > > > - http://drbacchus.com/wordpress/index.php?p=844 > > > > Season's Greetings, > > Sebastian > > > > -- > > Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/ > > GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
-- Paul Reinheimer Zend Certified Engineer

Jochem Maas

21 years ago
it may be worth noting that the percieved sentiment towards apache2 (as compared to apache) by the php 'crowd' (and others), is something that php5 may very well be suffering from itself: phpbb (if nothing else, a well known app in php-land) state in their changelog: "running phpBB 2.0.x with PHP5 is not supported at http://www.phpbb.com." not exactly a ringing endorsement. I have gotten a similar vibe in other places. also: the admins confronted with many boxen to upgrade to apache2 with all the possible things that could break on customer sites probably have the same reservations regarding upgrading to php5. seems to me php and apache have a common interest to form a united front in making sure apache2+php5 is silky, stable and easy to install/upgrade. It would be such a loss to see either project lose ground to commercial alternatives (e.g. .BILL ;-) due to percieved incompatibilities/instabilities and/or a percieved lack of direction. either project can stand on it own 2 feet. both projects gain through solid,stable integration. its a complete waste of energy pointing fingers or weighing up which project is the 'greater', I think they are both great and I hope that 'next generation' will team up as well as the current set do. rgds Jochem,
-- "what's php4?" Sebastian Bergmann wrote:

Wez Furlong

21 years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4117711.stm Not exactly a ringing endorsement ;-) --Wez. On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:14:31 +0100, Jochem Maas <jochem@iamjochem.com> wrote:

Jochem Maas

21 years ago
Wez Furlong wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4117711.stm > > Not exactly a ringing endorsement ;-)
lol. not at all surprising (I'm familiar with their code). but the point stands that php5 also gets unproductive coverage, and both camps working together make a much greater force against any FUD. completely off-topic: I just love the way you can write php that reads like english (as apposed to javascript's martian or perl's aramaic, I give away a little about my level of compentance their ;-) - dont ever change that! rgds, Jochem
-- Pretty Happy Place.

Ilia A.

21 years ago
Jochem Maas wrote:
> the point > stands that php5 also gets unproductive coverage, and both camps working > together make a much greater force against any FUD.
Any new release that in some situations breaks backwards compatibility will get some negative press. Ultimately, in successful products a point is reached when the software becomes stable and the advantage of new features and functionality begins to out weigh the difficulties of using it. Using the "latest and greatest" only tends to cause problems in the long run. Ilia

Paul G

21 years ago
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jochem Maas" <jochem@iamjochem.com> To: "Wez Furlong" <kingwez@gmail.com> Cc: <internals@lists.php.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Why we don’t like PHP / PHP’s anti-Apache2 FUD
> completely off-topic: I just love the way you can write php that reads > like english (as apposed to javascript's martian or perl's aramaic, I > give away a little about my level of compentance their ;-) - dont ever > change that!
you should switch to cobol. really. -p

Daniel Convissor

21 years ago
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 02:14:31AM +0100, Jochem Maas wrote:
> > "running phpBB 2.0.x with PHP5 is not supported at http://www.phpbb.com."
Of course, that's because they're too lazy to make it work under PHP 5, let alone be secure in the first place. --Dan
-- T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y data intensive web and database programming http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/ 4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409

Lester Caine

21 years ago
Daniel Convissor wrote:
>>"running phpBB 2.0.x with PHP5 is not supported at http://www.phpbb.com." > > Of course, that's because they're too lazy to make it work under PHP 5, > let alone be secure in the first place.
Of cause this has nothing to do with Apache2 issues, but phpbb like a lot of very popular packages does have a very restricted range of extensions that it will work with, many by design, others for much the same reason that support for Apache2/PHP is not as good - The old system works so why change it. Security is a very good reason for changing, and I know that is not relevant in this discussion, but a better culture *OF* updating systems where potential risks are fixed should be the norm, rather than "It works leave it alone" ;) ( Why do I have so much trouble getting connections to the php news groups. I've had to post these messages three or four time before they go through, and getting new messages from the list is very hit and miss :( )
-- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

George Schlossnagle

21 years ago
I'd like to invite all the folks who have been posting in this thread who lament PHPs support (or partial lack there of) for Apache 2 to dig into the SAPI and improve it. Open source is driven by both personal interest and project momentum, and I'm sure if you all start contributing improvements to the apache2handler or apache2filter that other developers will join in, caught up in the momentum you create with your code contributions. George On Dec 20, 2004, at 9:21 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Via PlanetApache: > > - http://drbacchus.com/wordpress/index.php?p=843 > > - http://drbacchus.com/wordpress/index.php?p=844 > > Season's Greetings, > Sebastian > > -- > Sebastian Bergmann > http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/ > GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B > 5D69 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
George Schlossnagle -- Prinicipal Consultant -- OmniTI Computer Consulting -- http://www.omniti.com