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: <4F4D960E.8090904@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:05:50 -0600
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
CC: Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1215525 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: ./ docs/manual/mod/
 docs/manual/programs/ modules/debugging/ support/
References: <20111217170400.8B17E238899C@eris.apache.org>
 <4EED00B6.40002@rowe-clan.net>
 <32A92A9D-7F1A-4896-A470-DC4918ED4DAA@sharp.fm>
In-Reply-To: <32A92A9D-7F1A-4896-A470-DC4918ED4DAA@sharp.fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 12/18/2011 10:45 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2011, at 10:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 
>> I proposed instead that you directly propose mod_policy, one of the
>> three modules, as a core httpd module, because it already has a clear
>> fit and really needs little further review (improvements, sure).
> 
> What you really said was:
> 
> "To clarify, I'm +1 for directly incorporating this into httpd/trunk/modules/test/
> 
> I don't think we need an independent subproject for this particular module, it
> seems rather straightforward.  Default to build-but-don't-load.  Provide an example
> config under docs/conf/extra/httpd-policy.conf"

The subject of what I really said was mod_policy.  Only mod_policy.  Nothing
other than mod_policy.  Do not twist my post.

mod_policy is an expression of HTTP correctness which I suggested for test/,
which httpd aught to have a vested interest in pursuing, as protocol correctness
is one aspect that interests us technically.  modules\test\ is a historic place
for this.

> Given that mod_firehose is significantly simpler than mod_policy, I am struggling to understand given both your stated preference above, and the preferences of others already stated, why suddenly this is a big issue.

That's your evaluation, not mine.  My evaluation is that you invented yet another
wonky data representation and the whole idea of firehose merits further thought
at its new home if httpd is to accept it.

We don't even need mod_firehose.  Maybe it will be nice to have.  If we do want
to adopt it, this implies killing mod_dump_io or refactoring one into the other
since they are largely aspects of the same thing.

Even back in the day I would have insisted this go to modules/experimental.
As it stands, I insist it not go in until it has a community, something you
have yet to demonstrate.

You have only three votes for mod_policy... please fix this today, before I
withdraw what starts to look like an ill-cast vote for introducing code with
dubious support of the community.