Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4CC55326.20604@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:51:34 -0500
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Another day, another veto (Was: Optimising ap_location_walk())
References: <395A3064-49A8-41E2-ADC7-91CB7A3E6FCA@sharp.fm>
 <4CC4B0C8.9010904@rowe-clan.net>
 <E970F537-79DB-4669-A84E-9B5562C3071B@sharp.fm>
In-Reply-To: <E970F537-79DB-4669-A84E-9B5562C3071B@sharp.fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/25/2010 4:35 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2010, at 12:18 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 
>> Consider this a pre -1 until enough eyes have
>> asserted that they have reviewed such a sandbox and declared it an improvement.
> 
> Wow, the very first contribution to the discussion is a veto, and you've vetoed code that
> doesn't even exist yet. Crickey, the *ideas* behind what code might be attempted haven't
> been fleshed out yet and you're already waving a veto around.

No, I voted against a concept (of throwing everything against the wall at once),
that wasn't even a veto.

If you can find 3 +1's, I already asserted that I'd reverse that position,
as my primary issue is a lack of review.

Right now, I'm staring at development in mod_cache that makes no sense,
other than bandaids and bubblegum over operational flaws, while we have
underlying logic between the datastore provider that thinks httpd, and
the mod_cache protocol module which is dealing with storage questions.
And you are asking to refactor *what* next?  Eeek!

What I was trying to say, however untactfully, is that I wouldn't be very
supportive of the same approach to core code.  And reading the rest of your
reply, I think we are of the same mind.

FWIW I didn't conflate anything, I understood each of the aspects of the
proposal you put forward as "one change".  If you can break down your
proposal into digestible pieces, I'll support any demonstrable worthwhile
piece you put forward.  I'm simply asking for no repeats of the current
state of cache/proxy/ldap/etc etc.  And I don't really think you disagree.

Pick a piece to discuss, and I'm happy to respond.