Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need to
install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
Support for mod_backhand seems to be a significant reason (and getting
backhand ported to v2.0 would be a win): Apart from backhand, are there
in
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Mathias Herberts wrote:
The main reason why we are not migrating to 2 is related to bug 17877 I
filed for Apache 1.3 last year.
Erm, you file a bug report for Apache 1 and treat it as a reason not to
upgrade to apache 2? Should I Cc: this to Scott Adams?
If you'd filed a
Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Mathias Herberts wrote:
The main reason why we are not migrating to 2 is related to bug 17877 I
filed for Apache 1.3 last year.
Erm, you file a bug report for Apache 1 and treat it as a reason not to
upgrade to apache 2? Should I Cc: this to Scott Adams?
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Mathias Herberts wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Mathias Herberts wrote:
The main reason why we are not migrating to 2 is related to bug 17877 I
filed for Apache 1.3 last year.
Erm, you file a bug report for Apache 1 and treat it as a reason not to
Nick Kew wrote:
Well, mod_proxy in Apache 1.x doesn't claim to be HTTP/1.1, so there's no
reason it should be expected to support chunked encoding. And since
Apache 1.x is a maintenance-only product not in active development,
that's not too likely to change - ever.
The mod_proxy in v1.3 does
Hi,
another reason may be mod_perl, althought mod_perl 2.0 is available for quite
some time, and there is a good documentation how to migrate applications, many
applications based on mod_perl haven't done so.
The problem is not the same as for mod_php. mod_php 4.* has been available for
apache
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:43:17 -0600, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apart from backhand,
are there
in the experience of the people on this list any other significant apps
out there that are keeping people from deploying httpd
We continue to have 1.3 servers because the Enhydra Director module,
needed for Enydra Application Server version 3, has not been ported to
Apache 2. The reason is that the Enhydra folks have long since
abandoned the protocol and now use AJP13, for which there is already
mod_jk2 and the AJP13
I don't work in the same group anymore, so I am not sure where we are
with the 2. versions. I do know that we have large number of custom
hacks in there, including one I did many moons ago for supporting
hundreds of thousands of name based virtual hosts without having to
enter them in the
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Peter Friend wrote:
I don't work in the same group anymore, so I am not sure where we are
with the 2. versions. I do know that we have large number of custom
hacks in there, including one I did many moons ago for supporting
hundreds of thousands of name based virtual
On Nov 18, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need
to install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
Support for mod_backhand seems to be a significant reason (and getting
backhand ported to v2.0 would be a win): Apart
On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 13:43 -0600, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need to
install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
Support for mod_backhand seems to be a significant reason (and getting
backhand ported to v2.0 would be a
Nathanael Noblet wrote:
On Nov 18, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need
to install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
Support for mod_backhand seems to be a significant reason (and getting
backhand
Interesting question.
I have just done a large scale review of our web server architecture and
have recommended a move to 2.0. There were a number of factors for not
moving, both
specific to our installation as well as in general. In general :
Remeber the old adage If it is not broke, do not fix
A can think of 4 big reasons, two from a developer standpoint and
two from an admin.
developer:
1. Builds and compiles in a minute, rather than several. This
means you can play around and develop more and compile
less.
2. More streamlined design; for some filters,
Jim Jagielski wrote:
A can think of 4 big reasons, two from a developer standpoint and
two from an admin.
developer:
1. Builds and compiles in a minute, rather than several. This
means you can play around and develop more and compile
less.
2. More streamlined
On Nov 18, 2004, at 12:16 PM, Ivan Ristic wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
A can think of 4 big reasons, two from a developer standpoint and
two from an admin.
developer:
1. Builds and compiles in a minute, rather than several. This
means you can play around and develop more and compile
I think people rely on apache 1.3 stability and security. many people
consider httpd-2.0 as too young and don't try to understand why it's better.
Does somebody have some percentage about 1.3 use and 2.0 ?
I don't think 1.3 is still here because of modules, there is too many
modules and too
Please don't forget:
1. Solaris 10 is shipping with 1.3.31
2. OpenBSD's fork of 1.3
--Brett.
Systems Administrator, RHCE
-Original Message-
From: Graham Leggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 11:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: People still using v1.3
Brett Lentz (Excell Data Corporation) wrote:
Please don't forget:
1. Solaris 10 is shipping with 1.3.31
Redhat is shipping 2.0 for long time now
2. OpenBSD's fork of 1.3
openbsd and the theocracy ?? hahaha cool
let them continue with 1.3
--Brett.
Systems Administrator, RHCE
-Original
Matthieu Estrade wrote:
I think people rely on apache 1.3 stability and security. many people
consider httpd-2.0 as too young and don't try to understand why it's
better.
Does somebody have some percentage about 1.3 use and 2.0 ?
I don't think 1.3 is still here because of modules, there is too
At 01:53 PM 11/18/2004, Nathanael Noblet wrote:
On Nov 18, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need to
install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
I think there is still a thought that php isn't mature on 2.x. (I'm using it)
From: Graham Leggett
are there in the experience
of the people on this list any
other significant apps out there
that are keeping people from
deploying httpd v2.x?
Because there can only be one
number one!
ASF told them over and over again
that it is number one. (rightly or not)
The
Personally, I have seen some hosting providers which I have talked to (and
worked with) hold back because existing client's htaccess scripts sometimes
experience quirks under 2.0.
In one case I have been privvy to, a test implementation was done with a
server that was practically a replica of
Graham Leggett , Thursday, November 18, 2004 14:43Hi all,
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need
to
install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
I have no idea. Stupidity, laziness, fear of change.
Maybe it's modules. The bandwidth throttling module might be a
25 matches
Mail list logo
