httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Iain Brown" <i...@iain.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] mod_proxy in?
Date Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:27:25 GMT
'Pologies for inserting my thoughts into what really is a developers' issue,
but... as a user and long-term wannabee developer (one day, one day...) I
would *strongly* prefer a) or b). Building Apache with its included modules
is a breeze. Building Apache+mod_perl+mod_php+mod_ssl/whatever is a
non-trivial problem. I think if you're as familiar with the codebase as
y'all are, it probably seems very simple, but for those of us who only do
occasional rebuilds, it isn't.

This isn't a gripe, I think the process is as streamlined as it can become,
but still, it is always an exercise that takes a good amount of time in
figuring out the changes, new options, whatever in each product, and takes
extra time in testing the results. I'm sure other admins would give you the
same kind of feedback.

The lack of mod_proxy has kept me from even being interested in evaluating
the 2.0 alpha. If it's in there, even as c) or d), I'll probably start
playing with 2.0. But I *know* that at this point building and configuring
2.0 for a newbie will be a pain, that's a necessary feature of a new
product. If I have to introduce the additional variables with c) or d), I'll
probably make the effort but give up when it gets too hard :-)

mod_proxy's inverse proxying is one of the key differentiators between
Apache and any other server for me. I'm honestly not sure how common that
is, which means I don't know whether many other admins would care about
mod_proxy as much as I do. But given my own needs, I'd probably go for b),
where I'd get a snapshot of mod_proxy whenever there's an Apache release,
and *if* there are experimental mod_proxy versions that I'd want to evaluate
getting a current development tree at that point. c) *might* work, but if
you're thinking that there will be additional integration effort, I probably
would just stick with the release snapshots.

Thanks for listening :-)

Regards, Iain Brown

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Murcko" <chuck@topsail.org>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] mod_proxy in?


>
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at 11:21 PM, Chuck Murcko wrote:
>
> > Does anyone want to rescind or change a vote?
> >
>
> Given the points of view perhaps it's better to ask which of these
> alternatives seems closest to consensus:
>
> a) Treating mod_proxy maintenance as tied to httpd, mod_proxy
> development as running on httpd major (m.n) release cycle, mod_proxy
> code as part of httpd-2.0 cvs repository and is released with httpd
> distribution.
>
> b) Treating mod_proxy maintenance as tied to httpd, mod_proxy
> development as running on httpd major (m.n) release cycle, mod_proxy
> code has its own cvs module (hey, we can start module-2.1 now, right),
> and is released with httpd distribution.
>
> c) Treating mod_proxy maintenance as NOT tied to httpd, mod_proxy
> development as running on its own release cycle, mod_proxy code has its
> own cvs module (hey, we can start module-2.1 now, right), and is
> released with httpd distribution. Note that this may require some
> reintegration at each httpd release (and more work than b).
>
> d) Treating mod_proxy as a separate project like mod_perl, on its own
> maintenance and development cycle, own repository, own release dates,
> and is not released with httpd, but runs under apache.org.
>
> e) not even remotely any of the above
>
> Note that, unlike Graham, I presume that there is future
> development/redesign to be done on mod_proxy.
>
> It'd sure be nice to not have to hit a moving target whilst riding in a
> rollercoaster, though. 8^)
>
> Chuck Murcko
> Topsail Group
> http://www.topsail.org/
>


Mime
View raw message