httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Bloom" <...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: Auth checker - long term goal..
Date Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:44:46 GMT
I still believe that everything that is currently in ROADMAP can and
should be implemented in 2.0.

Ryan

----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom                  rbb@covalent.net
645 Howard St.              rbb@apache.org
San Francisco, CA 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 10:37 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Auth checker - long term goal..
> 
> At 12:07 PM 7/10/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:39:29AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, but that is completely bogus.  If the API needs to
change
> to
> > > make things better, then change the API.  Stop trying to open a
new
> dev
> > > branch when the current one is still moving forward quickly.  We
have
> > > this discussion every few weeks now, and every few weeks the 2.1
repo
> > > gets shot down, because these changes belong in 2.0.
> >
> >I don't recall any strong opinions on this other than from you and
> >OtherBill.
> >
> >My feeling is somewhere between. We shouldn't rush off and branch 2.1
if
> >we don't have any specific goals to solve, nor should we be forcing
major
> >changes upon our 2.0 users. The point of inflection comes when
someone
> >produces a patch for 2.0 that we aren't quite ready to swallow. As
soon
> >as that happens we have a perfect excuse for a branch.
> 
> The list is in ROADMAP.  Every item there was effectively vetoed for
the
> current development tree as too radical an overhaul.  Each was pointed
to
> "the next version, we are {too close to|already for|already have the
ga}
> release".
> Improve the ROADMAP.  Spell out what 2.1/3.0 will offer.
> 
> Things like needing to track r->openfile instead of r->filename,
needing
> to
> follow a new convention to write auth modules {splitting authn/authz
into
> smaller useful chunks, but with no back-compat}, proving pushback as a
> more effective authoring and performance filtering model (that
accomodates
> both input and output filters in the same schema), async
cross-threaded
> requests, and so forth.
> 
> >Soooo.... -1 for 2.1 until we have such a patch.
> 
> I agree we aren't ready for 2.1 until 2.0 is stable and relatively bug
> free.
> I thought someone a year and a half ago actually threw one out there
> for some of the auth, but I too want the group to stay focused on
making
> 2.0 a serious threat to 1.3 and other servers.  Without breaking
existing
> 3rd party modules beyond rebuilding, and occasional API changes, that
> are absolutely required.  API changes that break 3rd party 2.0
modules,
> just "because it's better|cooler|faster", are bogus now that we are
GA.
> 
> Bill
> 



Mime
View raw message