Re: [apache-plusplus] Re: Process model for C++ Apache

[Michael Anderson <mka@redes.int.com.mx>]

Mike Anderson wrote previously:
> >Also the process-model discussion should have
> >been preceded by an architecture/product discussion - its
> >hard to consider design issues such as threading models
> >or class definitions without having a clear idea of how Apache
> >fits or should fit in the larger picture of distributed
> >computing. I believe the role of http servers is/will be
> >very different now (or in the very near future) than how
> >they are currently conceived. No reason Apache shouldn't
> >take the lead in these future roles as it has the lead in
> >the current conception.


Bret wrote:
> we need further discussion of architecture and general
> design before deciding on a thread package ...

Why don't you start an product/architecture discussion for
2.0 in new-httpd - that issue is more general than C++ and
needs to happen whatever the implementation language.

I'd do it but I haven't ever had any luck getting responses
in that mailing list. I wonder it there isn't another list
more appropriate?

Regards,


-- 
Mike Anderson
mka@redes.int.com.mx
+52 473 23730 voice/fax
Guanajuato, GTO, Mexico

"If it looks like a bug, waddles like a bug,
and quacks like a bug, its a quack!"