Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 88189 invoked by uid 500); 7 Feb 2001 20:06:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 88157 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 20:06:51 -0000 From: "Peter J. Cranstone" To: Subject: RE: Punt the Proxy Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:06:29 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <87zofyffef.fsf@pobox.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N I agree with Ben. There is a great need to think about the end user. I see the biggest problem at the moment as the transition of 1.x to 2.x Right now you have 10 million + users of a pretty stable code base. All the modules work or they've been hacked on to work. What's going to make them shift to 2.0. Multi threading? Maybe if it gives at least a 20% + performance improvement. The downside is that modules need to be rewritten and filtering needs to shown to be valuable for everyone to make the shift. What no one really knows yet is that with multi threading and filtering all turned on what happens to the promised performance. Again it has to be something compelling to make people start using it. My vote doesn't count on this forum, but I would suggest (IMHO) that you keep 1.x going for sometime. If it suddenly drops off the radar and 2.0 doesn't deliver then as more boxes are shipped either old versions of 1.x will be used or if the need is for SSL users will switch to IIS. Peter -----Original Message----- From: bhyde@zap.ne.mediaone.net [mailto:bhyde@zap.ne.mediaone.net]On Behalf Of Ben Hyde Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:43 PM To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Punt the Proxy I found Greg's note most amusing. Greg Stein writes: > 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. A slight tunning. We are also here to enable users, or thier agents, work on what they desire. I'm certain there are people out there that really really desire proxy. They want it bundled in the server - so the trick is to structure things so those people get traction on the problem. i.e. so they can hack, not whinge, at it. - ben