On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 16, 2017, at 1:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> >> >> I concur with Evgeny Kotkov that an ABI stable dependency is appropriate >> before adding this to httpd 2.4.x - so far as I've read none have suggested >> this as an experimental addition to 2.4. > > I do. We release it w/ the caveat that it is dependent on a > library that may change. Until that happens, we have users able > to use Brotli. That is a Good Thing IMO.
Let's examine your claim. There is no documentation at all of where to find brotli. http://brotli.org/ is now one day old (congrats!!!) - but not yet exactly discoverable, http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brotli+package The package lives now in Debian stretch and sid. Archlinux packages seem out-of-sync. This only exists on Fedora as copr package so far. So without telling users where to find it, "users able to use Brotli" is a false statement. OS distributors are waiting for 1.0.0 to package this. What's our rush? > Re: the docs, seem a minor nit to hold back, esp when you > don't even quantify how the docs are a complete mess nor the > requirement for an example in docs/conf. What other requirements > will you be spinning up? Missing 1. where to find brotli? 2. working config examples? These points might seem counter-intuitive, but without such simple things, the code is just dead weight. I'm investigating the interaction between brotli and deflate so we can support both simultaniously before feeding it to our stable users. Halting compression for half of the browsers in order to win a small percentage gain for the other half of the browsers seems sub-optimal, no? I'll be glad to discover that the brotli and deflate filters already coexist peacefully without double-compressing.
