Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-11 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Feb 9, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 7:37 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless you swap in some third party (memcached, distcache, commercial netapp) module. But, if we want a 'good' out-of-the-box experience, then it sounds like we

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-09 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik
Ok - so I think this compromise makes the most sense ALL everything except demo, experimental and things like bucketeer, import/export filters. MOSTall the stable things - including the proxy modules (And given the questions on mailing lists and wiki's -

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-09 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 02/09/2008 04:28 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: Ok - so I think this compromise makes the most sense ALLeverything except demo, experimental and things like bucketeer, import/export filters. MOSTall the stable things - including the proxy modules (And given the

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-09 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik
On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 02/09/2008 04:28 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: Ok - so I think this compromise makes the most sense ALLeverything except demo, experimental and things like bucketeer, import/export filters. MOSTall the stable things -

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-09 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Feb 9, 2008 7:37 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless you swap in some third party (memcached, distcache, commercial netapp) module. But, if we want a 'good' out-of-the-box experience, then it sounds like we should enable mod_disk_cache too. Similarly, it wouldn't make

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-09 Thread Paul Querna
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 7:37 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless you swap in some third party (memcached, distcache, commercial netapp) module. But, if we want a 'good' out-of-the-box experience, then it sounds like we should enable mod_disk_cache too.

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-09 Thread Issac Goldstand
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 7:37 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless you swap in some third party (memcached, distcache, commercial netapp) module. But, if we want a 'good' out-of-the-box experience, then it sounds like we should enable

PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-08 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik
Given that mod_cache is now quite mature - perhaps time to make it part of the 'all' setting in ./configure (and we could argue same for ssl and ldap). And hence make it part of the general body distributed by the vendors (who seem to follow our all config). I'd almost argue to make at

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-08 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:07:40 +0100 Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that mod_cache is now quite mature - perhaps time to make it part of the 'all' setting in ./configure (and we could argue same for ssl and ldap). And hence make

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-08 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik
On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:07:40 +0100 Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that mod_cache is now quite mature - perhaps time to make it part of the 'all' setting in ./configure (and we could argue same for ssl and ldap). And hence make

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-08 Thread Tony Stevenson
Nick Kew wrote: That begs the question, what do we mean by all? It currently excludes proxy and dav, as well as the modules you mention. That's IMHO rather more confusing than it should be. However, we really do need to default to dynamic building if we're to include more modules in

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-08 Thread Nick Kew
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:07:40 +0100 Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that mod_cache is now quite mature - perhaps time to make it part of the 'all' setting in ./configure (and we could argue same for ssl and ldap). And hence make it part of the general body distributed

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-08 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: Given that mod_cache is now quite mature - perhaps time to make it part of the 'all' setting in ./configure (and we could argue same for ssl and ldap). SSL has only been omitted from 'all' and requires explicit enable, simply to protect those users

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-08 Thread Graham Leggett
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: Given that mod_cache is now quite mature - perhaps time to make it part of the 'all' setting in ./configure (and we could argue same for ssl and ldap). And hence make it part of the general body distributed by the vendors (who seem to follow our all config). I'd

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-08 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:07:40 +0100 Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that mod_cache is now quite mature - perhaps time to make it part of the 'all' setting in ./configure (and we could argue same for ssl and

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-08 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 02/08/2008 07:58 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:07:40 +0100 Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that mod_cache is now quite mature - perhaps time to make it part of the 'all'

Re: PATCH -- make the cache modules part of 'all'.

2008-02-08 Thread Erik Abele
On 08.02.2008, at 23:57, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 02/08/2008 07:58 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:07:40 +0100 Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that mod_cache is now quite mature -