Apache - Windows vs Linux
bryan.sant at gmail.com
Wed Jan 25 16:02:42 MST 2006
On 1/25/06, Michael L Torrie <torriem at chem.byu.edu> wrote:
> While I'm sure there are still unixisms in Apache, but to say that
> Windows support was added to Apache as an afterthought in version 2.0 is
> incorrect. Apache 2 was designed from the group up to run on a portable
> runtime that supports a variety of underlying threading models, and was
> designed be able have first-class support for Windows as well as Linux
> and any other unix. Windows support for the APR (and hence Apache 2.0)
> was hardly an afterthought. And as far as technology goes (but not
> necessarily performance), unix Apache2 will not ever be significantly
> different from win32 Apache2. That's the beauty of a well-written
> runtime layer. It's portable and to a certain extent, the OS doesn't
> matter anymore. I think this is a good thing.
This is correct. Apache 2 dynamically links to libapr.so -- the
Apache Portable Runtime. Apache's Tomcat and Geronimo servers also
ship with the source code for libapr. Your tomcat server can now
serve static content as fast as apache thanks to the native libapr.
So the need to "front" Tomcat with apache lesses (though I still do).
More information about the PLUG