Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of trawick@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20120720162615.GB2227@samfundet.no>
References: <7FEA156C-A84E-4D74-9F6A-86862298B3F1@jellybaby.net>
	<20120720162615.GB2227@samfundet.no>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:48:33 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAKUrXK7ssap3Q1qMGCDAn_hS7kuYqvFVBaV-dpfDuo6T_ZAviw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: mpm-itk and upstream Apache, once again
From: Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Steinar H. Gunderson
<sesse@samfundet.no> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 06:54:56PM +0100, Tim Bannister wrote:
>> I think there's a case for leaving itk separate, a bit like mod_fcgid. It
>> is a bit unusual and troubleshooting won't be straightforward.
>
> Why would you keep mpm-itk separate but mod_privileges not?

IMO it is not a very relevant question given the big picture:

* Most modules written for httpd are not bundled with the server or
otherwise hosted/developed at the ASF.
* mod_privileges is for a minority server operating system and is not
used extensively even there.
* You won't find much rhyme or reason to why some modules are bundled
and some are not other than whether or the author has commit access,
and even then there isn't much consistency.

As far as mpm-itk:  A few hooks can be added to httpd core so that it
can be enabled just like other modules*, whether or not anyone here
cares about the implementation details.

*Of course that isn't really true of the popular 2.2.x branch, but I
don't think it is realistic to hope that mpm-itk would ever make it to
2.2.x anyway.

By the way, did any other httpd-ers have a look at those patches and
have suggestions for what hooks could be added?