At 01:03 PM 8/11/2004, Graham Leggett wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>That's something of a shame, because we lose the development >>history importing the finished effort, and it was further disappointing >>that you didn't bring across the earlier cvs history so this branch >>could be brought back into httpd/modules/proxy with a complete >>history. > >Ideally though I personally would like to see proxy_ajp in httpd v2.0 (assuming it's >practical, which could only be assessed once proxy_ajp existed). Getting it into a >working form first, then getting it into v2.1, and then backporting it in clean >logical sections to http v2.0 means it may be possible to get it into httpd v2.0, >without small bugfix commits getting in the way.
Since it will take some time to assess that the changes and new features are stable, v.s. dev quality, I believe it's sorta pointless to put extra energy into the 2.0 backport. We won't compromise mod_proxy again in 2.0 after its very slow crawl to some measure of stability. So count me a pretty strong -1 for backporting any major refactoring of proxy for 2.0. You know what pain it took for proxy to be accepted as useful (v.s. 1.3). This is a pretty significant leap, so it really doesn't make that much sense to compromise things. >>I'm actually very excited that we can offer in the 2.2 release - this >>really rocks. What you accomplished is very cool! >>I'm entirely +1 today for bringing it back into modules/proxy/ (it's a c-t-r >>branch.) How you did it makes this a non-trivial exercise. >>Boo :( > >My plan is to start bringing it into httpd v2.1 from next week, assessing how hard >the backports to httpd v2.0 would potentially be. Is the history kept in the tomcat >connector tree enough, or is it critical to get the full history into httpd HEAD? If it weren't critical, the Apache Group would still be kicking around patch files and tarballs :) I'm looking at the mechanics of moving this already. 2.1-dev stays C-T-R just to avoid this sort of mess and encourage new contributions. If folks would focus on adding the new wiz-bang stuff to 2.1-dev, and not obsess over backports, 2.2 would already be out the door, IMHO :) Obviously, if there were no other way, it would be a no-brainer that some 2.0 feature (or separate downloadable patch) would be appropriate. It wouldn't be a stretch to have a little conditional #if APR_MAJOR < 1 logic to offer backwards compatibility, then an end user could build their httpd with the 2.1-dev proxy tree instead of the 2.0 flavor. But with both _jk and _jk2, there are options - this is simply a monumental improvement over the old way. That's why versions exist in the first place :) Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
