httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <>
Subject Re: proxy maintenance (was: Re: [VOTE] mod_proxy in?)
Date Tue, 24 Apr 2001 22:02:51 GMT
Greg Stein wrote:

> In fact, jettisoning it from httpd is (IMO) the only reason that we've seen
> *any* activity on it the past couple months.

Nope - the main reason is that for the last month or so I had made
arrangements to work on the proxy full time, something I was not able to
do before because of schedule.

For a long time the proxy code was being ignored because it was behind
the rest of v2.0 development and slowly became too big a job for most of
the other developers to take on. It took a big push to get the thing up
to date. Now that it is up to date it will need very little modification
apart from bugfixes. It's based on RFC2616 after all, which is a pretty
stable document.

This of course doesn't stop Chuck adding his new stuff to the proxy, or
further ideas being worked on, the point is that once it works it works,
and there isn't a need to change the proxy simply for the sake of
keeping the appearance that it is being maintained. Of course if it
stops working (because of a bug, or a change elsewhere in the server)
then it would be expected that a fix be forthcoming as quick as any
other bit of the webserver.

> Part of the reason that proxy wasn't getting maintained is that the httpd
> folks have a different bar for commit access. Commit access was for *all* of
> the web server, not just mod_proxy. By splitting it out, then the mod_proxy
> developers can be an entirely different/disjoint set of people from httpd.

This helped a whole bunch - because the rewrite involved some big
patches, which the main core Apache team are allergic to :)

-----------------------------------------		"There's a moon
					over Bourbon Street

View raw message