httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: httpd 1.3.19 + proxy
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:28:39 GMT

  It's clear from the last 7 trys and 3 partial successes that we need to be
very cautious about the 1.3 tree's releases and stability, a ton o' folk are
relying on this.  Win32 10 things fixed, 1 thing broke issues don't bother me,
but an underpinning like mod_rewrite or mod_proxy do concern me.

  Have you considered the advantage in creating mod_proxy11, similar to the
way we paralleled mod_digest and mod_auth_digest?

  I'd be a strong supporter for taking these as a 'fork' - preserving the existing
behavior of mod_proxy and 'doing no harm' to that module.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Murcko" <>
To: "Martin Kraemer" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: httpd 1.3.19 + proxy

I've also received a second patch today which adds keepalive support to the proxy. It builds
on this first patch, so it'll be good
to fix this one first if necessary to fairly test the second. I've seen no problems here using
it for normal browsing as an outbound
proxy, but I will beat on it a bit harder as I get snowed in tomorrow.

The second patch should post to modproxy-dev list in the next day or two. Are there objections
to maintaining these together as a
single "HTTP/1.1 proxy rollup patch"? They're pretty tightly related in a nonpatch sense.


On Thursday, March 1, 2001, at 08:09 AM, Martin Kraemer wrote:

> > For testing, I propose to put the patch at
> >
> >
> >
> > or something like that.
> >
> > My thought is to maintain this patch in parallel with the current 2.0 proxy work
> until we stop supporting 1.3.x.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> Good idea. I would like to test it. I use the proxy in our intranet.
> If it proves to be stable, I suggest integrating it into the baseline.

Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group

View raw message