httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <I...@cnet.com>
Subject RE: [VOTE] mod_proxy in?
Date Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:47:15 GMT
my only issue with moving proxy ( and rewrite ) to sub-projects
is their visibilty, and future maintenance.

These 2 modules are heavily used in 'large' websites, and for
me they hold the same importance as mod_include. 

are people just worried about there being a bug-fix in a module,
which forces a roll of the entire application?

..Ian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:admin@rowe-clan.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 11:29 AM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] mod_proxy in?
> 
> 
> From: "David Reid" <dreid@jetnet.co.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:50 PM
> 
> 
> > Well, why not do the same as we've done for APR?  I don't 
> see why mod_proxy
> > can be "bundled" in the same way can't it?  It seems to 
> make sense as both
> > an included "entity" and a seperate project.
> 
> What I suggested as a roll-up?  Of course, we can release 
> these together, including
> any new http/https/protocol/proxy/auth and whatnot!
> 
> I'm suggesting that given an 8 month pause in 1.3 releases 
> last year, with several
> simple win32 proxy fixes dropped in, we dropped the ball.  
> Proxy was fixed, but there
> was no push to reroll all of apache-1.3.
> 
> A sub-project aught to be able to release as it is ready.  If 
> proxy is ready for a 
> 'release' today, then roll one for 2_0_16 (our last beta) and 
> let folks bring it up 
> to date.  2_0_17 is now broken for some platforms shutdown, 
> so they will be waiting 
> a while longer to play with proxy.  This is the 
> wrongheadedness of rolling in the 
> entire, complex kitchen sink into httpd-2.0.
> 
> When we roll 2_0_18, we aught to roll in the last good tag of 
> proxy.  This all 
> implies an independent sub-versioning schema for these apache 
> sub-projects, and 
> I don't have an answer off the top of my head.  Perhaps those 
> who revamped the 
> tag/roll/build/release schema have a way this could play well 
> (and perhaps good 
> arguments against.)
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message