Subject: Re: [ANN] CAMP 1.1b1, Apache 1.3.4 SSL, SLLeay 0.9.0b released
From: Stipe Tolj <[email-masked]>
To: "Smith, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 03:29:28 +0100

> This sounds like a very useful collection of software but before I pick it
> up I have a couple of questions :-)
>
> *       Are there any particular advantages in running CAMP on cygwin32 as
> opposed to the native Win32 Apache and associated software? To put that
> another way, what does this configuration buy me that the native one
> wouldn't? It may be worthwhile mentioning any such advantages on the CAMP
> web page for potential users :-)

CAMP is only our pseudonym for our binary distribution of our Apache 1.3.4 port
with compiled in PHP 3.0.6, DAV 0.9.5 and MySQL Authentification 2.20.

Our Apache Cygwin port is more close to its UNIX conterparts than the official
native Win32 version. That means, if you want to run PHP3 on your site you have
to define the external php.exe as Handler in the native Win32 version which
causes Apache to start a brand new process for any incomping PHP3 request. Our
version has the ability to compile the huge PHP3 library into the Apache
exetuable causing Apache to handle the request internaly without the need of
calling external programs. In general our version is more modular extensible
that the native version and it is very stable (as reported by users) at least on
Windows NT.

The mentions are under development :)

> *       I wouldn't neccessarily wan't to run this from the command line -
> could it be run as an NT service (using SrvAny for example)?

Ups, that's something I may not be able to answer. I'm using Windows 98 and
currently no NT at all. But I suppose (as other daemons ported to Cygwin) it may
be possible to run the httpd as an NT service.

> *       Also, I seem to recall that cywin32 is not currently thread-safe. Is
> this still true and does it affect this port at all? I thought that this
> would perhaps be important for a web server but maybe not?

Of course it is important for a web server. Unfortunatly I can only reproduce
what other users have mentioned about the stability of our port on NT and it
seems that it is quite stable. You could contribute in improving our port if you
dare to test it.

Regards,
Stipe

--
Stipe Tolj <[email-masked]>

Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin/

Department of Economical Computer Science
University of Cologne, Germany