httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From TOKI...@aol.com
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2001 19:39:39 GMT

In a message dated 01-09-06 19:30:47 EDT, Justin wrote...

> I think this functionality belongs in the core (not as a 
>  sub-project or as a separate standalone module).  That's it.

Fair enough. Thanks for the quick reply.
You won't get any argument from me on that point.
I was saying that (over) 2 years ago on this very forum.
  
>  Its omission up until this time has been for purely political 
>  reasons (as evidenced by the flame fest over the last few days).  
>  IMHO, there is no good technical reason to not have this 
>  concept as a core Apache module (be it mod_gz or mod_gzip).
>  
>  In point of fact, I had no idea that people would react so
>  vehemently against the idea.  But, that's also because I'm
>  a clueless newbie - Roy probably would have warned me about
>  this quagmire if he was in town, oh, well...  =-)  I'll
>  probably never hear the end of it when he returns.  -- justin

I am sure the roof at eBuilt is in no danger of blowing off.
Roy is a reasonable guy.

I still don't think you answered the REAL question, though,
and that is why, in light of everything else going on at the
moment trying to get this 2.0 puppy at least to a BETA
tarball so many more people can TEST it ( don't know if
you realize it but there are many people out there who 
won't test an Alpha but they will test a Beta ) is the
inclusion of mod_gz such a house on fire for you RIGHT NOW.

The better answer would be that in light of the IO problems you
saw trying to test mod_gz with mod_include you think that
mod_gz MUST be there because only that combo is going
to show the flaws in the filtering, or something like that.

I still don't think that's enough of a reason to bomb a module
into the core distribution but is that what you were thinking?

Just curious

Yours
Kevin Kiley


Mime
View raw message