httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: [mod_proxy] Help offered
Date Wed, 07 Feb 2001 09:02:55 GMT
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:11:51PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:13:31PM -0800, Sander van Zoest wrote:
> > >...
> > > Although it should considered, I think the power of an apache proxy server
> > > would be the fact that it could do both of these tasks. I would consider
> > > a proxy type of project to be more along the lines of what Dean Gaudet has
> > > been refering to as an "http router". Everyone is doing this one way or
> > > another and this is also part of squid now (with their accelerated support).
> >
> > Woah! Squid now has reverse proxy support?
> >
> > Feh. If that's so, then there is even more reason to move the proxy out of
> > the core and into a separate CVS repository for independent development.
> I disagree. Squid is a heavy weight 'solution' for folks just interested in proxy pass
> "reverse" proxy).

And Apache is light weight? :-)

Are you arguing to keep mod_proxy in the core? If so, then I'm also assuming
that you're signing up to assist in maintaining it. :-)

My point is that people have alternatives. I was under the impression that
Squid didn't have reverse proxy support, which meant Apache was the only
"real" one out there (thus making our rev proxy support relatively important
in the scheme of things). Finding that Squid (whose sole purpose in life is
proxying) has reverse proxy changes my point of view dramatically.

While it would be nice for us to have it (due to licensing, features,
whatever), I don't see it as critical or core to our main goal of being a
web server. Moving it to its own CVS module with its own dev staff can only
help the thing. Keep it in the core (in its current, unmaintained state) has
all kinds of problems.


Greg Stein,

View raw message