httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <ab...@dial.pipex.com>
Subject Re: axe proxy support from 2.0?
Date Sat, 13 Nov 1999 17:41:23 GMT
I think the point that Gregs been making (and he'll correct me if I'm wrong
I'm sure) is that what most people want is the functionality of various bits
of a proxy.  Given this it seems that if we concentrate on writing those
bits to be tightly integrated with Apache-2.0 and abandon the idea that we
supply a "full-blown" proxy we're getting more bang for our buck.

Just my 2p again...

david
----- Original Message -----
From: Eli Marmor <marmor@elmar.co.il>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: 13 November 1999 17:23
Subject: Re: axe proxy support from 2.0?


> Hello,
>
> I didn't express my opinion in this issue so far; I don't think that
> my opinion is so important, I'm not one of the core developers, my
> contributions to the development of Apache were too humble, and I
> didn't want to make anybody angry.
>
> But I see that this thread is going and going, and without expressing
> my opinion or why I think that it is very dangerous to axe the proxy
> stuff (I don't want and don't have time to), I just wanted to let you
> know that I, and many other people and companies I know, use this
> stuff very heavily. Squid can't help, because in most of the cases
> the purpose is to use the same program for some HTTP purposes AND
> proxing.
>
> I remember that less controversal proposals, such as integration of
> the EAPI code (please don't flame; Just an example!), were denied
> very easily, although most of the developers wanted them. In some
> cases, even an objection of ONE developer, sent an idea to the
> trashcan (these are the rules, aren't?).
>
> Of course, we can compromise on putting the proxy stuff in the
> "experimental" directory. But it is exactly as integrating EAPI into
> the code while excluding the "-DEAPI" from the default configuration
> (again, I used EAPI only as an example).
>
> I think that if it is so critical and important to axe it out, maybe
> it will be better to just add a disclaimer (like in the case of the
> WIN32 port) that it is not 100% stable (although IMHO it IS), or add
> a recommendation to use Squid. In any case, don't forget that the
> default configuration of httpd.conf is "ProxyRequests Off", and
> nobody is forced to uncomment the "#ProxyRequests On". So even a
> disclaimer and/or recommendation to use Squid, is already a huge
> compromise.
>
> --
> Eli Marmor
> marmor@elmar.co.il
> El-Mar Software Ltd.


Mime
View raw message