httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject punt the proxy (was: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/proxy proxy_http.c)
Date Mon, 05 Feb 2001 19:40:57 GMT
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:13:41AM -0800, wrote:
> > > I never thought I would suggest this.  I think we should remove the proxy
> > > from the tree

Heh. You Covalent guys... I was just talking to Randy about this a bit over
a week ago. I said the same thing: "nobody is working on the proxy code, yet
every time we say 'rip it out' somebody comes along and says they'll work on
it; two weeks later it is dead again."

Personally, I think I started pushing to rip out the proxy at least a year
ago. And my mind hasn't changed one bit. It really should go. This stupid
bit about "oh, but I'll work on it" every time this discussion comes up is
just insane. I think we've done this twice now. Each time, somebody says
they'll work on it, but *zero* happens. Screw it. They can work on it in a
separate CVS tree. (as a sub-project of the httpd PMC)

> > I have mixed thoughts on this one.. On one hand, I agree with your pragmatic
> > approach, on the other, we -must- have proxy pass function in the server to
> > allow transparently "redirecting" (not HTTP redirect) traffic to back-end
> > servers based on URL. My $.02

Let's be clear: you're asking for a *reverse* proxy here. That is a simpler
beast than a general proxy, thankfully. I believe a full forward proxy is
just dumb within Apache -- send people over to squid if they want that.

Personally, I would punt the entire proxy bundle to another CVS tree. When
somebody comes back with reverse proxy code, then we can put that portion
back into the tree.

> I agree completely.  I just dislike all the dead code in the tree.  I kind
> of would rather put a VERY light-weight proxy in the code, that just does
> the bare minimum, until we get a real proxy done.

Punt it all. When it is in shape, then it can come back.

I think back to when I asked about whether mod_dav could go into Apache. The
answer was always conditioned on having an active maintainer for the code.
The proxy stuff doesn't satisfy that, and it shouldn't return until that can
happen. IMO, it really should go.

If we get a teeny, simple, reverse proxy module, then the group as a whole
may be able to maintain it. But anything bigger needs a real maintainer.


Greg Stein,

View raw message