httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Marmor <mar...@elmar.co.il>
Subject Re: axe proxy support from 2.0?
Date Sat, 13 Nov 1999 17:23:20 GMT
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