httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: zlib inclusion and mod_gz(ip) recap
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2001 04:05:21 GMT
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 11:05:50AM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > Ryan himself said he prefers 3 right off the bat when Jerry
> > > > said 'Let's dump Ian's mod_gz into the core!' which is what
> > > > started this whole entire thread.
> > >
> > > Ask him what he thinks now :-)  Knowing Ryan, he is probably fine with
> > > adding it at this point.
> > 
> > Nope.  My opinion hasn't changed.  I won't veto, but I continue to think
> > this is a bad idea.
> i have the same opinion, for the same reason i was stunned (and still
> am) to see ldap modules in the 2.0 tree.

That was a surprise to me, too. I was out during July. I thought we would
have some simple ldap stuff in APRUTIL... not a huge codebase in httpd.
(when I discussed a division of the code, I was expecting a separate vote
for adding mod_ldap to httpd-2.0, which I would then vote against :-) Since
then, I had also thought we agreed to move mod_ldap *out* of the core, into

To make all of this workable, I just recently posted a thought on how to
deal with rollup releases. No comments appeared on that yet, tho.

> new modules at this point are
> only going to further delay the release of 2.0, hell even discussing
> adding new modules is contributing to the delay.

If Ian is not assisting with stabilizing the httpd core, then how could his
work on mod_gz delay the core? IOW, he is not "subtracting" anything from
the stabilization process. If the argument is that people who *are*
stabilizing the core will now be distracted... that is their problem :-)
mod_gz is just a little bugger off to the side that the core people don't
have to truly worry about. It will get enough attention from the "fringe"
people, if you will (my pardons to people who were just called fringe :-).

> i do think apache should be bundled with one or the other (mod_gz or
> mod_gzip), but it should wait until 2.1.  i'm pretty sure most people
> (myself included), are most interested in being able to just use 2.0
> feature-wise as-is and won't mind waiting until 2.1+ for new features.

Introducing mod_gz isn't going to slow down a 2.0 release. And it *is* a
part of RFC 2616, supported by a bunch of browsers, and it is definitely
missing functionality (re: its lack was pasted over by mod_perl's and PHP's
band-aid solution to compression).

> we're in the 9th month of year 2001, i saw the first glimpse of a '2.0'
> server in early 1996 (rob thau's), i have no problem waiting longer for
> bug fixes, performance, "doing things right", etc., but there is no good
> reason to add new modules or big features at this point.  they should wait
> for 2.1+.

If people want a stable server, then they should work on that, and not pay
attention to mod_gz within the server. It should be stable enough, and it
*does* simply use the existing module and filter interfaces. Why should core
people worry about it? It can go in now and be fixed over time.

There are a good number of people in this group, and each of those people
concentrate on different items, for different reasons. If you want a stable
server, with a sooner-than-later release, then concentrate on the core. Some
of those other people will work on modules which have *nothing* to do with
stability. If the core developers are distracted by mod_gz, then that is
their own fault, not the fault of introducing a new module.


Greg Stein,

View raw message