httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "i.t" <...@ithum.de>
Subject Re: httpd-docs-2.0 - mod_proxy.xml 1.12
Date Sun, 06 Oct 2002 15:10:01 GMT
msg Sonntag, 6. Oktober 2002 16:39 by Joshua Slive:
> i.t wrote:
> > proposed change for mod_proxy.html.en  1.12  4 days kess
> >
> > the sentence, line 96:
> >
> > Other dedicated forward proxy packages include Squid
> >
> > should be changed to:
> >
> > With very high requirements in terms of the cache, GB range and several
> > hundred or thousand users, you should use Squid
> >
> >  explanation:
> > Squid can be installed as secure reverse proxy, and is therefore no
> > "dedicated forward proxy". Also, the change may clearify in conjunction
> > with the mentioned mod_cache that there is an Open Source alternative for
> > high cache requirements, and even bring back in mind for a reader quickly
> > viewing the page the earlier mentioned statement: ...the Apache
> > 2.0.x-Proxy doesn't cache at all...
>
> Removing the word "dedicated" from the phrase "other dedicated forward
> proxy packages" is fine, since we don't want to misrepresent other
> software.  But the rest of this change is not good.  Apache 2 does
> indeed provide a caching proxy, if you properly configure mod_cache.
> And if we are going to refer everyone with serious needs to squid, then
> we might as well remove mod_proxy from Apache.  It may be true that
> squid outperforms mod_proxy in many respects, but that is an argument
> for improving mod_proxy, not giving up on it.  If there are specific
> things that mod_proxy does not do properly, I have no problem with
> including that in the documentation, as long as it is also filed in the
> bug database.  But making blanket "this module sucks" statements does
> not seem productive.
>
> Joshua.

there seems to be some misunderstanding;
I've never had the intention to make blanket "this module sucks" statements; I 
even have no idea how this can be interpreted from my text (I'm not a native 
English speaker).
Since you're active on so many lists and newsgroups, you may remember those 
questions related to squid and apache.
well - the rest "Apache 2 does indeed provide a caching proxy, if you properly 
configure mod_cache" is, of course, true. And that was exactly my intention 
to clarify this issue. In other words: you need to configure mod_cache  
getting an Apache 2 caching proxy.
This has nothing to do with "squid outperforms mod_proxy in many respect";
should simply give a hint that squid is a dedicated cache.
Regards
i.t
-- 
 . ___
 |  |  Irmund     Thum
 |  |   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message