Andrew Piskorski said: > Also (and I'm speaking largely from ignorance here), most low-end > hosting services are still running Apache exclusively in multi-process > (not multi-thread) mode anyway, right? So would that "100 AOLserver That's what my guess is. Apache 2.0 adoption has been frustratingly low for it's developers.
> here Bas, you want to use something like that to bring AOLserver to the > masses? Ehrm, Andrew, I was the one debunking this idea! ;-) (read the entire thread) > It would be fun to be really well contradicted on this, though! Not by me, I agree that it's a futile excercise making AOLserver do this. This thing got roling because someone (Peter?) asked if AOLserver could do this, pointing out that Apache can. I was on a mission to prove that Apache really can't, at least not untill the scripting languages support it, and even then it wouldn't work as efficient as you would still need different interpreters for each users or an interpreter that is multi-user. Failing that, or if you can't multithread on one interpreter, one interp per user per thread. Which will be quite big. I don't care too much about the popularity of AOLserver, as long as is popular enough for the code to be kept up to date. It's too bad it's hard to come by a job doing AOLserver, but other than that, I don't mind... Bas. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
