Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 50085 invoked by uid 500); 6 May 2001 21:59:32 -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 50071 invoked from network); 6 May 2001 21:59:30 -0000 Sender: minfrin Message-ID: <3AF5BAD8.CAF4ED1D@sharp.fm> Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 22:58:00 +0200 From: Graham Leggett X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.4.4 ppc) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Rollup such a good idea? (was: Apache rollup tree) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Chuck Murcko wrote: > Httpd is getting huge when you count all the support projects it > includes. I think we're moving in the wrong direction keeping it as a > monolithic release. I'm thinking in terms of someone who has had to maintain an Apache + extra modules before. It may make life easier for us in some ways, but it sure sucks for the end user. > My opinion has changed in the opposite way yours > has, from thinking mod_proxy needed to be in the core to thinking both > it and httpd are better off with a 2 stage release process. The hassle here is that mod_proxy does belong closer to the core. Both the mod_core and the proxy_http modules are both very similar to each other, sharing a lot of common code. Ideally Apache should be able to: - provide frontend modules for connecting browser -> server. - provide backend modules for connecting server -> HTTP | filesystem | CGI | FTP | Jserv | etc Obviously this is a development for Apache > 2.0, but moving proxy away from the core now is moving in the wrong direction. Regards, Graham -- ----------------------------------------- minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon over Bourbon Street tonight..."