httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: Punt the Proxy
Date Tue, 06 Feb 2001 23:25:29 GMT
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:36:59AM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> Eli Marmor wrote:
> >
> > I hope I didn't sound too much flaming...
> 
> I didn't take the message as a flame at all.  I just wanted to clarify the
> position.  You are correct, that this needs to be posted here as well as
> new-httpd.  In fact, I have copied this message to new-httpd as well, in
> the hopes that people will keep the conversation on both lists.

[ this is actually quite hard to do because of the Reply-To munging ]

> > I remember at least 3 different people (don't remember their names; I
> > think that one of them was from IBM), volunteered to maintain it. I
> > guess that all of them are subscribed to this list.
> 
> This is the problem.  People have volunteered to be the maintainer of the
> proxy for years, but it never really happens.

Exactly. And we bring up tossing the proxy, and people jump back in for a
week, then go away and proxy languishes again. Chuck has now said "I've got
some patches!". They'll get applied, and we won't see him again for several
months (just like last time).

This is bogus, and we should stop deluding ourselves that proxy is being
maintained. Hell, that it is even getting finished.

>...
> By removing the proxy from the main tree, we remove the second problem,
> allowing more work to happen on the proxy.  If we continue to distribute
> the proxy from the web site, I do not believe that we will decrease the
> number of people using it.

Right. If people need the proxy functionality, then they know it is on
apache.org; they grab it and install it. No big deal.

> > I believe that proxy must stay in the standard tree. If the problem is
> > that it is not up-to-date, then update it. If the problem is that it's
> > broken, then fix it. If the problem is that there is no maintainer,
> > then find one. But axing it, is like axing other integral parts of

Oh, shut up. We aren't responsible for the proxy code. Every works on what
they want to work on. We can't point at somebody and say "you are now the
maintainer." That just doesn't work in an Open Source project.

We'll move the code into a new CVS tree, and then YOU work on it. Don't come
crying to us because your favorite feature is being moved to a different
tree. We aren't here to please you, we're here to work on things that are
interesting to us.

If you want it, then step up to the plate and contribute your time. If you
don't want to spend your own time on it, then just go away.

>...
> I believe many of those "fixes" are actually incorrect in Apache 2.0.  I
> have been investigating them slowly, but it should be 100% possible to
> create a fully independant proxy.  If it isn't, then I would like to know
> why and fix those problems.

I'm with Ryan. If the proxy cannot be built as a separate entity, then we
need to refactor the core to make it possible. But the core does not
necessarily need to explicitly deal with proxy.

> > I just think about the MANY existing users of it. I'm sure there are
> > more users of Apache's proxy, than users of BeOS or NetWare, that you
> > are working so hard to let them use Apache.

This has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. BeOS and Netware users are
taking the time to make Apache work on their platform. Nobody is doing that
for proxy.

The number of end users is totally irrelevant. It is all about the people
*working* on the code. We are not here to satisfy end users' entire scope of
needs. We are here to satisfy them where their needs intersect our desires.

>...
> Eli, I truly think you and I are working for the same thing.  I want to
> see the proxy work continue.  I believe by removing the proxy from the
> tree, we can make it much easier for more people to contribute to the
> proxy.  I also honestly believe that if we can prove the proxy has a
> healthy development team behind it, then in the future it should be very
> possible to fold the new proxy back into the main tree.

I totally agree. Move the proxy out. Let people work on it and get it
functional. Then make a decision at that point to include it into the tree
or to keep the development separate.

But keeping it in the tree hasn't work for at least a year, probably two.
Enough is enough. Move it out.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message