httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <madhusudan_mathiha...@hp.com>
Subject RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2001 22:06:58 GMT
Hi,
'not sure if my views hold any ground here - but I believe we should not be
linking mod_gzip and mod_ssl here..

mod_ssl - it's one of the modules without which lots of users (especially
the e-commerce uses) would not even consider using Apache (forget the
performance). It's pretty much a REQUIRED thing in a webserver.. 

mod_gzip is totally different - it certainly helps in decreasing the
response time for the user - but it's definitely not a required thing.. 

-Madhu

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:56 PM
To: Ryan Bloom
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS


On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 02:49:56PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> If the module is a part of the server, then it must work before the server
> is production ready.  You can't have a module that doesn't work in a
server
> that is going GA, it doesn't make sense.  You will find if you read the
> archives, that we have cancelled releases in the past, because a single
> module did not work correctly.  Anytime you put something into the core,
> you take the very real chance of delaying the core server.

I thought that we didn't follow the policy with certain modules.
AIUI, mod_ssl is exempt from this.  Why not mod_gz as well?  Or, as 
some have suggested - stick it in modules/experimental?  

I'd also like to point out that no one has said that the module 
didn't work as expected.  I tested it before I submitted it with
my +1.  If it doesn't work, it'd be fixed.

FWIW, I don't thinking creating a sub-project for one file makes 
a lot of sense.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message