Please stop your sending email to me.
Thank you.
- Original Message -
From: jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: mod_proxy hooks for clustering and load balancing
Paul Querna wrote:
Hi,
There is lots
Paul Querna wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:50 AM, jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Hi,
There is lots of discussion about fixing mod_proxy and
mod_proxy_balancer, to try to make it do things that the APIs are just
broken for, and right now, it seems from the
On 06.05.2009 22:31, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'll stop worrying about 2.2 when 2.4 comes closer to being a reality.
Not saying that releasing 2.4 isn't worth it, but there have been
stops and
starts all along the way,
On 6 May 2009, at 21:31, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'll stop worrying about 2.2 when 2.4 comes closer to being a
reality.
Not saying that releasing 2.4 isn't worth it, but there have been
stops and
starts all along
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 3:32 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
We should experiment freely on trunk/ to come up with the right
solutions,
and also freely discard those solutions from the next release branch.
But
we shouldn't throw changes willy nilly over to 2.2, but as Paul
Paul Querna wrote:
Hi,
There is lots of discussion about fixing mod_proxy and
mod_proxy_balancer, to try to make it do things that the APIs are just
broken for, and right now, it seems from the outside to be turning
into a ball of mud.
I think the right way to frame the discussion is, how
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:50 AM, jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Hi,
There is lots of discussion about fixing mod_proxy and
mod_proxy_balancer, to try to make it do things that the APIs are just
broken for, and right now, it seems from the outside to be
Hi,
There is lots of discussion about fixing mod_proxy and
mod_proxy_balancer, to try to make it do things that the APIs are just
broken for, and right now, it seems from the outside to be turning
into a ball of mud.
I think the right way to frame the discussion is, how should the API
optimally
Paul Querna wrote:
Using this structure, you can implement a dynamic load balancer
without having to modify the core. I think the key is to _stop_
passing around the gigantic monolithic proxy_worker structures, and go
to having providers that do simple operations: get a list, sort the
list,
On May 6, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Hi,
I think the right way to frame the discussion is, how should the API
optimally be structured -- then change the existing one to be closer
to it, rather than the barrage of incremental changes that seem to be
creating lots of cruft, and ending
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Hi,
I think the right way to frame the discussion is, how should the API
optimally be structured -- then change the existing one to be closer
to it, rather than the barrage
On May 6, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Stop worrying about 2.2, and just focus on doing it right -- then ship
2.4 in 3-4 months imo, trunk really isn't that far off from being a
decent 2.4, it just needs some cleanup in a few areas. It has already
been 3.5 years since 2.2.0 came out,
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Stop worrying about 2.2, and just focus on doing it right -- then ship
2.4 in 3-4 months imo, trunk really isn't that far off from being a
decent 2.4, it just needs some
On 06.05.2009 20:26, Paul Querna wrote:
There is lots of discussion about fixing mod_proxy and
mod_proxy_balancer, to try to make it do things that the APIs are just
broken for, and right now, it seems from the outside to be turning
into a ball of mud.
I think the right way to frame the
Paul Querna wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The incremental changes are just so we can keep 2.2's proxy somewhat
useful and flexible enough to survive until the next revamp.
Stop worrying about 2.2, and just focus on doing it right -- then ship
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'll stop worrying about 2.2 when 2.4 comes closer to being a reality.
Not saying that releasing 2.4 isn't worth it, but there have been stops and
starts all along the way, and I think we need to be clear on what we
expect 2.4 to be. Until then, we have no clear
On May 6, 2009, at 3:32 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
We should experiment freely on trunk/ to come up with the right
solutions,
and also freely discard those solutions from the next release
branch. But
we shouldn't throw changes willy nilly over to 2.2, but as Paul
says, let's
focus
Paul Querna wrote:
Stop worrying about 2.2, and just focus on doing it right -- then ship
2.4 in 3-4 months imo, trunk really isn't that far off from being a
decent 2.4, it just needs some cleanup in a few areas. It has already
been 3.5 years since 2.2.0 came out, its time to move on in my
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'll stop worrying about 2.2 when 2.4 comes closer to being a reality.
Not saying that releasing 2.4 isn't worth it, but there have been stops and
starts all along the way, and I think we need to be clear on what we
expect 2.4 to be. Until then, we have no clear
Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'll stop worrying about 2.2 when 2.4 comes closer to being a reality.
Not saying that releasing 2.4 isn't worth it, but there have been stops and
starts all along the way, and I think we need to be clear on what we
expect 2.4 to be. Until then,
On 05/06/2009 10:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 3:32 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
We should experiment freely on trunk/ to come up with the right
solutions,
and also freely discard those solutions from the next release branch.
But
we shouldn't throw changes willy
On May 6, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'll stop worrying about 2.2 when 2.4 comes closer to being a
reality.
Not saying that releasing 2.4 isn't worth it, but there have been
stops and
starts all along the way, and I think we need to be clear on what we
On 05/06/2009 10:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'll stop worrying about 2.2 when 2.4 comes closer to being a reality.
Not saying that releasing 2.4 isn't worth it, but there have been
stops and
starts all along the
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Well, that's the question, isn't it? I can't align the idea
of trunk being a candidate for 2.4 and trunk being a place for
people to experiment...
What do we want 2.4 to be and do. And how.
Once we define (and agree) to that, we know how close (or far)
trunk is. It
Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Once we define (and agree) to that, we know how close (or far)
trunk is. It sounds like we have some set that wants to break
trunk apart and totally refactor a lot of it, and that's a big +1.
It's also not a 3-4 month effort :) It also sounds like
25 matches
Mail list logo
