At 09:41 AM 8/16/2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: >We had this discussion elsewhere, but just for the record.. > >Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > > And, my point back to you is that should be part of the documentation > > of the module NOT of httpd-2.0. > >IMNSHO, that is *such* BS. If someone has a working Web server >and upgrades following our recommendations, and things stop working, >it's not PHP that will get blamed. PHP still works just fine; there >always has been the potential for trouble with threaded libraries, but >that wasn't an issue because the Web server didn't use threads.
And what was said elsewhere by someone else [not me] is that we've warned folks for THREE YEARS that Apache 2.0 would be threaded. >What changed? The Web server; it started supporting threads. So it >behooves the Web server to document the potential for problems. Document them *where*? As was pointed out on another list, quit bitching about it and propose docs-patches that would make you happy.. >Why should the burden be put on PHP, or any other module for that >matter? *They* weren't the ones that enabled threading. And they only had three years to prepare. The problems are not with PHP or with mod_perl, both support threading, and are thread-safe themselves. So now, what libraries are broken? That is what Rasmus, Justin, Doug and others are going to the trouble to research. So stop accusing our researcher/volunteers of BS, and quit spreading FUD yourself. If your module isn't threadsafe, check the mpm for threading support and bail. If your module *might* be threadsafe, but might not because of 3p modules, check the mpm for threading support and throw a warning. And once we finish preparing a list of known-thread-safe libraries/versions (and how to detect which version of each is present) we can go as far as warning the user that a specific library is known to be thread-unsafe and emit very loud build and run time warnings. Step one is research. Quit pissing off the researchers with your pronouncements from on high :-) Bill
