So, for a moment, ignore the existance of AOL. What does the rest of the AOLserver Community think about your patches? I don't mean people just saying "oh, we think Vlad's patches are great" -- I mean, who else has written code that needs to run on a version of AOLserver built with your patches? (This is my "actions speak louder than words" principle.)
If no code nobody will use it, it needs to be developed first and then other people will notice it and may try it. For example, i made binder to support all kinds of sockets, not just TCP, UDP/UNIX/RAW. Before if you need UDP server you will have to write module or separate process, now you can use AS API. This give opportunities for others to develop different applications, not Web apps but server apps.
Please explain what the difference is between being "just a webserver" and being "a full-blown application server." Isn't a web server that serves web applications, by definition, a kind of application server? By virtue of its name, at minimum a web application server?
By application server i mean you can built not only web applications, more exactly, the server does not necessary accepts only HTTP requests.
This is, of course, the benefit of having a very flexible, easily extendable and highly modular architecture. Only stuff that needs to be part of the core in order to function should go there. And, as time goes on, you may likely see even more and more functionality come out of the AOLserver core into their own independent modules.
It's been 5 years and we still have same AOLserver distirbution since 3.3.1, same functionality, it took how long to accept aD patches into mainline?
A list of contributed AOLserver "modules" (for lack of a better name) has been up on the wiki for a while:
http://panoptic.com/wiki/aolserver/Modules
Many of the modules listed were not developed by AOL! That's a significant contribution from outside of AOL, for a project that so many people criticize as "not being friendly to non-AOL contributions." Is the argument here that those modules should be integrated into the core? Do you really think that makes sense? I'm all in favor for an even more lightweight core, but maybe others aren't?
I contributed myself 12 modules (i have more in my repository) and they are active, but that's my point exactly, if you have to implement something not simple or different as AS module, AOLServer architecture does not allow you to do this without changing the core.
On ther hand, not everybody needs it, maybe only 1% from all users will need from AS non-web only functionality, so, may be keeping core as is would be the best thing and having only one version in the SF.
Maybe completley different version/fork with its own plans and not associated with AOLserver is the only way?
I was not trying to break AOLServer community, that was my personall opinion and actually i do not expect anything from AOL or Core developers, i am sorry if i offended somebody. I will continue to use AOLserver, extend it, keep my patches and contributing new modules. I just gave up participating in SF tracker thing.
-- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
