Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <3E353B77.2020509@wstoddard.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:00:23 -0500
From: Bill Stoddard <bill@wstoddard.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: merging httpd-pop3 into httpd-2.0?
References: <C5E908D5-31B1-11D7-B442-000393B3C494@clove.org>
In-Reply-To: <C5E908D5-31B1-11D7-B442-000393B3C494@clove.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>
>
>> 3)Why for instance, could this not stay as a seperate module??
>
>
> I don't think we should be moving more code into the core.
> It would be nice if we could make the core lean and mean
> and keep the modules on their own independent development
> paths.
>
> Besides, this module is a great example module, so it should
> stay that way (and stay out of the base distribution).
>
> -aaron
>
I find it very interesting that a year or so ago, there was a heated 
debate about whether we should include mod_proxy in the distribution or 
leave it as a seperate project. There were -very- strong opinions on 
both sides of the debate.  The interesting observation is that mod_proxy 
had folks willing to maintain it, it was used and desired by the http 
server user community and it was an http protocol module. Now we have 
very few dissenting opinions about bloating the core with a module that 
has nothing to do with, http or the http server and has no following or 
user community.  I am a strong +1 with leaving it where it is. If enough 
folks are interested, build a webpage and advertise it.  If it scratches 
an itch, it will become popular enough to develop and maintain a user 
community. Bundling it with the httpd distribution is not going to 
influence  its popularity.  mod_pop3 is a pretty interesting module but  
I am -1 (a vote not a veto) for including it in the core distribution.

Bill