Message-ID: <382DA56C.DBDD70E@elmar.co.il>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 19:52:44 +0200
From: Eli Marmor <marmor@elmar.co.il>
Organization: El-Mar Software Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: axe proxy support from 2.0?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9911121652520.2535-100000@nebula.lyra.org>
 <382D9E88.E1384063@elmar.co.il> <004a01bf2dfe$51142100$0a1aa8c0@jetnet.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

David Reid wrote:

> 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.

My message was not a response to Greg's message (BTW: I think that he's
doing some amazing projects, like the mod_dav and other useful things);
It was a response to the whole thread/idea, and his message was only the
last one I saw when I decided to write my message. In any case, I under-
stood the point that you are trying to clarify, when I wrote the
previous message, and still thought that many people would miss that
stuff. Again, I have good reasons for my opinion, but no time and/or
desire to argue about them. I think that the fact that many people rely
on things which are not among the "various bits" you mentioned, is
enough to leave the whole proxy module as is, and logical reasons are
not needed.

-- 
Eli Marmor
marmor@elmar.co.il
El-Mar Software Ltd.