From a build standpoint I agree.

But VC++ 2005 has improvements in Performance, MemoryManagement etc.
The optimizer seems  to improve the performance quite significantly.

Contrary to what Microsoft would like, you can built the server with the
needed DLLs statically so there is nothing to ship and nothing to install.
The Sambar Server( www.sambar.com ) uses this approach.


Steffen

----- Original Message ----- From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Directions for Win32 binary httpd


Ok, I've come to a conclusion; for the coming release, only msvcrt.dll
builds under Visual C++ 6.0 make sense as our binary distribution.

I'm not suggesting we dismiss the potential win of supporting our Studio
2005 compiler users(!)  But let's quickly compare...

 . binary users generally aren't building modules, they need to plug into
   widely distributed binary components.

 . source users generally can build anything from source, if they need to.
   If they want to interface several components, they can build our source
   tarball with any compiler they like, including the 1 year free license
   of Studio 2005.

 . it's pretty trivial to build/install httpd with one of several pretty
   minimal unix toolchains available.

It seems that most of the communites are still in VC 6.  Remember the key
reason we keep using it, MS dropped support for exporting makefiles.  With
no makefiles, you are roped into supporting only version x or newer Studio
products.  With .dsp/.dsw solutions, we can export makefiles on the old
reliable VC 6, and users can load/convert these into Studio 2000/03/05.

So I'll move ahead with all the msi tweaks required for our changed files,
and we can reevaluate the state of things 6 mos or a year from now when we
are almost ready to ship Apache X :)

That's my conclusion, I'm still more than happy to hear out dissenting
opinions.  Speak up quick, though, planning to have a package up in
/dev/dist
by Sunday night for review, and push it out sometime early next week.

Bill



Reply via email to