On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 11:42:48AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>...
> WebDAV isn't a 'done' protocol, and really started out as the WebDA protocol
The portion of WebDAV defined by RFC 2518 is *very* done. It kinda has to
be, to be an RFC :-)
> (versioning deferred until we figure out how it should be described.)
mod_dav already supports DeltaV, provided a backend that actually implements
it. There may need to be some tweaks for the recent drafts, but Apache's
support is done. (I doubt mod_dav_fs would *ever* want to natively support
DeltaV; that is definitely for third party backends)
> I'm sure it will grow.
Actually, I would doubt that. It's got all the bits in there already. If
anything, it could shrink over time. Stuff like "If:" header handling is
appropriate to the whole server, not just DAV. And there are some utilities
and other items that are redundant or can be migrated (e.g. time
formatting).
In truth, mod_dav is a (functionally) stable piece of code with a highly
dedicated maintainer. There are ways to improve it, and I'm actually in
process on an improvement currently (it *shrinks* mod_dav, although
mod_dav_fs grows some). It isn't like mod_proxy which used to be buggy and
under-featured, or mod_rewrite without an RFC or a maintainer.
> In a perfect world, apache-2.0.26-gold-core.tar.gz contains just the core. Then
> give the world apache-2.0.26-gold-all-gold-20010915.tar.gz with all _released_
> subprojects effective 2001.09.15 rolled in! The adventurous could try the
> apache-2.0.26-gold-all-beta-20010915.tar.gz. Finally, the looney (most folks
> that follow this list) can grab apache-2.0.26-gold-all-alpha-20010915.tar.gz
> for alpha releases of every module (probably a longer list, since some subprojects
> at a given time likely haven't gone gold just yet.)
I don't like your package/version names :-), but I completely agree with the
concept. It's what I advocated when we were discussing what to do about the
proxy stuff (and each time since).
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
