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.


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