I am willing to accept this. I don't think it's the job of the PHP group to fix thread-safetyness for all libraries on all platforms. That's a herculean task. Plus, I'm sure we're not alone in problem. Surely the mod_perl folks and [insert your favorite popular Apache module here] have similar issues.
If we could say that PHP works on a certain subset of systems (my proposal is that we limit ourselves to the current release versions of popular OSes) with a certain set of extensions (again, I propose everything that is enabled by default, if possible. I'm not sure how large that set of extensions is) then that would be "good." If that seems as if it would involve too many hours of QA (which it certainly could), I think the list you're currently making listing what does and doesn't work w/r/t threading is an acceptible substitute. That way, even if we can't fix it, we can at least tell you that your library is broken and switching to [insert thread-safe substitute] will solve the problem. If people choose not to switch, that's their problem, but we've at least given them the information to make a decision before they tear their hair out wondering why PHP keeps crashing. -adam On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > But how do you propose we come up with perfect Apache 2.0 support? If we > limit it to the pre-fork mpm, we can probably get quite close to perfect > stability, but for any of the threaded mpms we are completely at the mercy > of the threadsafetyness of all the various third party libraries on all > the various platforms that PHP runs on. There is simply no way to ensure > that PHP against Apache 2.0 with a threaded mpm will be production > quality. The best we can do is pick a small set of extensions and a small > set of platforms and say that with the limited set of extensions, against > a specific set of versions of addon libraries on a specific version of > that OS, yes, it should be production quality - maybe. > > -Rasmus > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > > I think that at this point we should switch from wish-list mode, to > > > a down-to-earth realistic mode. That is, not put everything that we > > > want to see in the roadmap, but only things which are either > > > pre-requisites or things we know with a great deal of certainty. > > > > I don't know what the timing of PHP 5 will be vis-a-vis Apache 2.0 > > stabilization, but it'd be real nice if we could have a "production > > quality" Apache 2.0 module. > > > > I know there's been a lot of work on the module and I rememeber > > reading that what it mostly needs now is burn-in and testing. (Maybe > > there is some additional functionality or optimizations we also wish > > to enable?) > > > > So, it could be that everything is perfect by 4.3, but I think it > > would be "good," if we could tell everyone that 5.0 "works" with > > Apache 2.0. > > > > That could be a nice sized carrot, for those looking for vegetables to > > support a vegan lifestyle. :) > > > > -adam > > > > -- > > adam maccabee trachtenberg > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > -- adam maccabee trachtenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
