> On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 08 Oct 2015, at 1:45 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yeah... it was 'always' foreseen that mod_h2/mod_http2 would provide >> useful clues on how to make 2.6/3.0 better, especially w/ the idea of >> slave connections; basically, as you say, let the MPM make mod_http2's >> job easier by abstracting out a lot of the tricks that mod_http2 needs >> to do to something that the MPMs themselves provide. >> >> At that same time, however, was/is the need/desire to support http/2 >> in 2.4.x (in fact, mod_h2 was *designed* w/ 2.4 in mind). So we are >> in this initial stage where what's in trunk isn't perfect for trunk >> (http/2-wise) but that's because it's really architectured for 2.4. >> >> Once 2.4.17 is out, then I expect mod_http2 to start diverging between >> the trunk and 2.4 variants, as the version in trunk drives the MPM >> designs there, which correspondingly drives mod_http2 in trunk as well >> (ala a feedback loop). My goal was/is to make motorz "ideally" suited to >> support http2. > > I don’t yet see a big necessity for diverging. So far the changes required > have all been backportable to the v2.4 series, and I believe we should > continue to strive to do so until we find we really can’t. >
Oh, I agree. My point was basically that mod_http2 (and the general impacts it makes on the architecture of core and the MPMs) will help "drive" design, or at least show where some changes can be made. Some may be backportable to 2.4 (and that would be ideal) and others may not be (but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be done) > I am sensitive to our release cycles - on purpose, we don’t release minor > releases often, and that is a good thing. We want to ship something that is > stable that people can deploy and forget about, rather than something that > changes out from underneath you every six months. > > I don’t want to wait till v2.6 to get async behaviour, and I don’t believe we > have to. :) Same here. ++1!
