httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Feature Proposal: ProxyRewriteHostHeader
Date Wed, 12 Apr 2000 05:10:56 GMT
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
> > That said, I'm ambivalent (leaning towards no) since I don't think we
> > should really be involved in proxy-anything.
> Really?

No, I'm lying... of course really :-)

> Is mod_proxy in danger of being canned?

Certainly not. I'm just one voice. I can refuse to fix bugs or enhance
mod_proxy, but others will and do step up to do it. There are still a good
number of people that like and want mod_proxy. The general rule at ASF is
that something can go into the standard distribution if (and only if)  
there is a maintainer for it. Unfortunately, there isn't a clear rule on
what to do when the maintainer is no longer active -- you end up with
unmaintained code (which the entry rule is used to prevent). A few months
ago, I spoke up to have mod_proxy removed because there was no apparent
maintainer and it was generating quite a few bug reports. That is a poor
situation for the rest of us since we don't know the code, can't really
fix the bugs, can't fix the documentation, can't answer questions, etc.
Having that chunk of stuff can also reflect poorly on Apache as a whole.

[ note that there are other pieces in Apache that don't have maintainers
  either, but none approach the complexity of mod_proxy ]

However, for the mod_proxy case, a couple people have stepped up to offer
their support for it. As a result, it doesn't truly have to go :-)

> That's pretty shocking
> to hear - it's a very useful module.  Do you mean that it should be moved
> out of the core distribution or abandoned entirely?

IMO, abandoned. But let me qualify: the *forward* proxy aspect should be
dropped and that functionality deferred to Squid. The reverse proxy case,
where Apache sits in front of a dozen "interior" web servers, is still
useful. But even then, I'm not sure that all of Apache is needed for that
(e.g. a simple load balancer replaces much of this). I'm a bit torn on the
reverse proxy part, because I do see people's position that a front-end
Apache can perform a number of tasks (auth, page assembly, static content
delivery, etc) and defer to the back-ends for other, more complex pieces.

I believe that Graham Leggett was working on some code to distinguish
between the forward and reverse aspects. Essentially, to modularize the
pieces so that it is easier to make choices about this stuff.


Greg Stein,

View raw message