Paul A Houle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't see excellence coming from "swiss army knife" frameworks > that do everything, but from systems that are developed from a whole > system viewpoint, that have a good amount of codesign between layers of > the system -- if you build a system that lets you plug in arbitrary > junk, you're going to get arbitrary performance and reliability.
I don't think the ASF infrastructure team feels that way about qpsmtpd + mod_perl. Without mod_perl, qpsmtpd simply couldn't handle our load. With mod_perl, it handles the load rather easily. The glue code to hook qpsmtpd into mod_perl is rather small. I consider that a remarkable real-world success of the 2.x architecture, warts and all. [...] > Were Apache development targeting real problems that real users > have, I think things would be quite different. My point remains this: we target power users, because those are the people that contribute to the project. Mass-virtual-hosting ISP's rarely have anything to contribute here; yet they form the dominant portion of our "market share". > > A big part of the problem is that the Apache project has settled > into a local equilibrium -- this explains the paradox of a product that > obviously satisfies end user's needs well (no competition has emerged) > but has a moribund development process. Any real innovation in the web > server space will need to be disruptive, to break things. Apache, as > we know it, just can't do that. As an apreq developer, I couldn't disagree more. 2.0 solved our real-world problems that *our* users face, because it allows better modularity. No longer do apreq users have to use apreq consistently throughout their codebase in order to reap its benefits. -- Joe Schaefer
