Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03C741880B for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:29:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 98537 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2016 02:29:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 98470 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2016 02:29:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 98457 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jan 2016 02:29:41 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:29:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 25928C0ECE for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:29:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rowe-clan-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HeVsBDvz9Snx for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:29:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id A533543F56 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 1so520135631ion.1 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 18:29:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rowe-clan-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Epn4079ocyAvu52agqNt6tQ5P952JOiv3u0H2LqKJec=; b=Qwf/ckc+EPT3/4NsSJOyRAeFSB0T5pYa0OxQhYHwkQfNjoJZ0acmwxj+ZGNzxA7mVO s3z+88kmk6Ay9k7xnn55UaPdKqVMuMLQhFxRUjTY6+XeH+VvuW49/V16y87UsrCcn38I NmRdHyhrU3v8bv2ZueDfz5BiMVhiMWZmQ15+hOxj/7JBfxu2DNmkSHEsXuuBxNdPk3B9 bu1wqW2LM4pg2Z0BC3ZbbCE3O3siYhsiqddhvaN2lcDIN00byUCTYwl+i698T4JPycmo OIILdlCLj/0aZZ6REvzN9n4MpMemYt7vperpuumW6HMqR9affx1nzIh8MnGfAvmkEQ1j p2uQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Epn4079ocyAvu52agqNt6tQ5P952JOiv3u0H2LqKJec=; b=DZaEO3wQyQn2yDLUtLcdnBjatDa7ZhfvSwjVPuzULst+bQzzqzm7MYYNC9VP4CBWR4 Mg+e3K8ER4MqMQSKEYlwbqMwUsZnCpOl18mfrnt5AZB3CLlGbzrkiPoo/jTTw4o/lI8F kufLXGlFNdK02cGIvUrozJVmMDJ9JQloiU4vh9CR+FyDckAtW0fCTqrILclfqXlkEYes t8VM1jzIjtosM+gUElbE6mesde4r3jptfIkjEsU4mS/FqrpJ4gEQqkBGIjzdQDgeBnIL VTS4zPOQ/xhwQJx0n4J/vdtCmnsOECndilFPn/Y8qbkjwTU/KCwYB/QYW5AwFinHyO5V crMA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnYe67p+VryCszCwz0WwRMWbL2Hn/n3xdl8MqgixY4yuTgWc4hbokyR6G50wr6ShZprh+8Uir6RYCiix4Y393Wlr73mNu2P7+09lqBuat4DO1T7sSY= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.28.82 with SMTP id c79mr22856618ioc.86.1453170572142; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 18:29:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.62.69 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 18:29:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1441CA88-2B82-4746-BA69-7A60F02CCEA5@jaguNET.com> References: <56954235.2010707@rcbowen.com> <7EE0E7E6-21E7-4738-B6CA-872D79D363BF@jaguNET.com> <1441CA88-2B82-4746-BA69-7A60F02CCEA5@jaguNET.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:29:31 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: mod_fcgid and broken doc links From: William A Rowe Jr To: httpd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11409b98c070010529a6a318 --001a11409b98c070010529a6a318 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > On Jan 18, 2016, at 3:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > On Jan 14, 2016, at 5:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > > > > > Good point with your example, this is something that should > > > be benchmarked and the winner-take-all, loser bumped from the > > > trunk/ copy of httpd. > > > > -1 > > > > You are implying that one would be a winner in all cases. The > > whole idea is that there are cases where one is better than > > the other. We provide both. > > > > You might have made that inference, but I'm going to assert that > > for this one module, for s/{literal}/{repl}, mod_sed is going to > > outperform mod_substitute /if/ we wrote the code correctly. > > I disagree... it's kind of obvious by simple inspection that > mod_substitute has fast paths that mod_sed lacks and, as thus, > can be quite performant and the "better" choice in numerous cases > where that fast path is used. > Well, only benchmarking is going to prove that one way or the other, something I don't have free cycles for right now (committed to way too many other project priorities.) And it perhaps opens up opportunities to optimize mod_sed in ways that might have been initially overlooked when the code was thrown into trunk ;-) > Me, I don't tend to think of myself as "smarter" than all of > our users, nor do I try to act as Big Brother and remove choices > from people in cases and situations where they are using them. > The ASF itself doesn't do that, nor do projects... so it seems > kinda weird that you would want the httpd project to all of > a sudden start removing choice and options for end users instead > of helping them out and trusting them to know which impl is > best for them. > Thankfully, we aren't, but our users do look at us as experts in the code they consume, considering that we collectively have authored and maintain the stuff. So they do look to us to make the best choices they don't have the individual time to compare and elect. Why would I want us to collectively (and for me specifically) to propose the best solutions to the common use cases, and to depreciate less maintained code in favor of maintained code? Can't imagine why I or other project members would be possessed to do that. If you figure it out, please share :) --001a11409b98c070010529a6a318 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> w= rote:

> On Jan 18, 2016, at 3:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 2016, at 5:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> >
> > Good point with your example, this is something that should
> > be benchmarked and the winner-take-all, loser bumped from the
> > trunk/ copy of httpd.
>
> -1
>
> You are implying that one would be a winner in all cases. The
> whole idea is that there are cases where one is better than
> the other. We provide both.
>
> You might have made that inference, but I'm going to assert that > for this one module, for s/{literal}/{repl}, mod_sed is going to
> outperform mod_substitute /if/ we wrote the code correctly.

I disagree... it's kind of obvious by simple inspection that
mod_substitute has fast paths that mod_sed lacks and, as thus,
can be quite performant and the "better" choice in numerous cases=
where that fast path is used.

Well, onl= y benchmarking is going to prove that one way or the other,
somet= hing I don't have free cycles for right now (committed to way too
=
many other project priorities.) =C2=A0And it perhaps opens up opportun= ities
to optimize mod_sed in ways that might have been initially = overlooked
when the code was thrown into trunk ;-)
=C2= =A0
Me, I don't tend to think of myself as "smarter" than all of<= br> our users, nor do I try to act as Big Brother and remove choices
from people in cases and situations where they are using them.
The ASF itself doesn't do that, nor do projects... so it seems
kinda weird that you would want the httpd project to all of
a sudden start removing choice and options for end users instead
of helping them out and trusting them to know which impl is
best for them.

Thankfully, we aren'= t, but our users do look at us as experts in the
code they consum= e, considering that we collectively have authored
and maintain th= e stuff.=C2=A0 So they do look to us to make the best
choices the= y don't have the individual time to compare and elect.
Why wo= uld I want us to collectively (and for me specifically) to
propos= e the best solutions to the common use cases, and to
depreciate l= ess maintained code in favor of maintained code? =C2=A0

Can't imagine why I or other project members would be possessed= =C2=A0
to do that.=C2=A0 If you figure it out, please share :)

--001a11409b98c070010529a6a318--