httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PATCH] mod_deflate extensions
Date Sun, 24 Nov 2002 07:05:50 GMT
--On Friday, November 22, 2002 12:03 PM +0100 Henri Gomez 
<hgomez@apache.org> wrote:

> So we should use a copy of mod_gzip compression code in Apache 2.0.
> Also as someone involved in mod_jk/jk2, I'll need gzip
> compress/uncompress support in Apache 2.0 for a new ajp protocol
> I'm working on, so having compression/uncompression in Apache 2.0
> will be mandatory for me.

No, we shouldn't be including zlib code (or any variant) in our 
distribution.  That's not our responsibility.  It's also not 
important enough for us to further bloat our code just because an 
insignificant number of distributions haven't provided a good package 
of zlib.  If it's that important, those administrators can build 
their own zlib or just not use any functionality requiring zlib.  The 
point here is that no functionality is lost if zlib is missing. 
(And, if you are doing a mod_jk, zlib support should be optional not 
mandatory.)

> Ok, let be pragmatic. Did Apache HTTP developpers agree that
> compression should be added in Apache 2.0 by incorporating mod_gzip
> comp code in Apache 2.0 ?

mod_deflate is already there and it uses an external zlib library, so 
I'm confused why we should also provide mod_gzip and/or its 
proprietary compression code.

mod_gzip is freely available, and the ASF doesn't need to distribute 
it (Remote Communications evangelizes it enough).  One of the main 
reasons for selecting mod_deflate was that it didn't unnecessarily 
duplicate code.  Less code is better.   We don't need to repackage 
zlib.  I have no desire for us to compete with the zlib maintainers. 
We have enough work as-is.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message