httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Auth checker - long term goal..
Date Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:36:41 GMT
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