Apache HTTP server 2.2.0 has been released. This version of Apache is a major release and the start of a new stable branch. New features include Smart Filtering, Improved Caching, AJP Proxy, Proxy Load Balancing, Graceful Shutdown support, Large File Support, the Event MPM, and refactored Authentication/Authorization.
Will we get rid of “not recommended” on windows thing ?
Will this apache version get rid of “not recommened” for working together with php ?
Will both of them be tackled ?
Dunno for sure … but i take my hat down to competition.
As far as PHP goes, I believe the only reason the Apache group said that was because they thought PHP wouldn’t be thread friendly and Apache 2 uses lots of threading. The PHP people on the other hand say there is no problem at all running PHP with Apache 2, so who do you believe?
Apache 1 didn’t do so well on Windows because it uses process creation, which is a slow task on windows. Apache 2 it more Windows friendly and I have no problem running it on a Windows server (though it seems more at home, and better integrated on Unix).
As far as PHP goes, I believe the only reason the Apache group said that was because they thought PHP wouldn’t be thread friendly and Apache 2 uses lots of threading. The PHP people on the other hand say there is no problem at all running PHP with Apache 2, so who do you believe?
PHP definitely is *not* thread safe, and you are misrepresenting PHP people’s opinion. Please stop doing that.
See
http://bugs.debian.org/297223
http://bugs.debian.org/297679
http://bugs.debian.org/299820
for some details.
Therefore, using PHP with threaded Apache 2 MPM is simply asking for trouble.
I tend to use a webserver distributed by opensa.org for my windows boxes. It contains the apache 1.3 webserver with php and openssl already preconfigured and built (with a nice click, click, click installer) and it appears to be working just fine for me.
The only thing you have to do after that is setup your httpd.conf file and bobs your fathers brother, its up and working with a minimum of fuss.
Opensa is easy to install, with the added bonus of handling ssl certs etc without the need to patch a codebase and then rebuild your own webserver (which can be a pain in the ass as unlike linux, windows does not come preinstalled with the necessary build tools) from the ground up if you use the apache ‘proper’ distribution.
I would of course like to be running the 2.0 or 2.2 version of the apache webserver for that matter, but when you need to get a development webserver up and running in an hour, opensa with its click, click, click install seems to be the way to go at the moment if your a windows guy and you want to use the apache webserver.
“I would of course like to be running the 2.0 or 2.2 version of the apache webserver for that matter, but when you need to get a development webserver up and running in an hour, opensa with its click, click, click install seems to be the way to go at the moment if your a windows guy and you want to use the apache webserver.”
Try the XAMPP ( http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp.html ) distribution instead.
Edited 2005-12-04 04:42
I completely agree to use XAMPP. You can get everything you need up and running within 5 minutes. And best of all it installs and uninstalls cleanly not touching any of your Windows folders / files.
Hmmm XAMPP sounds interesting…i will got take a look, didn’t know about this one
Thanks for the info 
1. its open
2. its portable. apache runs on an incredible number of OSs and architectures
3. its multiparadigm/multilanguage. want to code your website in lisp? ruby? perl? go nuts.
4. it performs decently given its features. i am preemptively deflecting all of the posters who will tell me its a performance hog that they certainly couldn’t run their 10,000 a month site on. on a decent machine, apache will certainly saturate the outbound connection your colo is likely giving you (100 base t). if you want robustness and failover, you buy more boxes and geographically disperse them.
thanks to the apache team. this is one of the most important open source project.
How does the performance of this release compare to previous releases? I’m in need of a server upgrade and anything that can help me delay that while I wait for newer and better stuff to come out and get cheaper makes me happy
>> I’m in need of a server upgrade and anything that can help me delay that
if you can’t afford $2000 shouldn’t you just be on a monthly service plan and let the ISP worry about meeting a performance benchmark?
Is or will there be a module to import virtual host settings from a Mysql DB?
Because that’s what I’m missing the most…
Not following apache mailing lists, has there been any recent discussion about removing the license restrictions that were introduced after 1.3.29 (I think).
See here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=108653020220858&w=2
Apache would certainly benefit from the securit enhancements of the OpenBSD team.
Greets.
Not following apache mailing lists, has there been any recent discussion about removing the license restrictions that were introduced after 1.3.29 (I think).
I don’t know all that much about the bsd boycotting of the apl 2.0 but I highly doubt you’ll see the one clause removed from one product just because of this protest. The entire apache foundation uses the same license and that’s way bigger than just httpd.
> Apache would certainly benefit from the securit
> enhancements of the OpenBSD team.
These are for Apache 1.x and not for 2.x