httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>
Subject Re: CALL FOR VOTE: Inclusion of mod_rewrite v2.2
Date Tue, 13 Aug 1996 03:34:29 GMT
> On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Aram Mirzadeh wrote:
> 
> > Well, just my two cents, I think the core modules, should be exactly that.
> > The bare minimums to get a httpd daemon up and running.  Everything else is
> > luxury, and should be "an option". 
> 
> I vehemently disagree, and precedence disagrees with you as well. The
> "bare minimums" are no modules at all. Apache will function just fine
> without them. What amounts to the "core" set is what was in NCSA httpd
> 1.3R, which was by no means a "simple, bare minimum" server. Server-side
> includes? CGI? Imagemaps? All of that stuff is incredibly optional, as
> Apache sees things. The asis module? When was the last time you even
> *used* that? Yet we include it all by default.
> 
> There are over 100,000 sites using Apache. I'd wager 99.9% of those do not
> get more than *maybe* a couple thousand hits a day. A 386 running Linux or
> FreeBSD can handle that without problem. The 0.1% that's left, that need
> the speed and power that Apache provides at its peak, can afford
> (literally)  to tailor their hardware and software to fit their exact
> needs.
> 
> In other words, it takes a lot less keystrokes for those people who's
> hardware can't afford to have mod_rewrite compiled in to comment it out
> than for those people who couldn't care less and want its functionality
> to uncomment it.

It's also more likely that those people who don't need it, don't
have the clue to recompile without it. I'd be surprised if sites
needing this functionality would consider running a binary distribution.

The bottom line is that I think it needs to prove itself as an
optional module for awhile before we consider putting it in every
copy.







Mime
View raw message