Marc,
>> It makes zero sense to rush into doing "something" just to do
"something" without any clear concept of where it is going >> or what
steps really need to be taken to get there.
Here's a concept.... Save bandwidth. Here's another one, it's part of
the spec. Finally how about we released it under an ASF license.
>> Also note that, IMO, we do _NOT_ want a mod_g* in 2.0 that has a lot
of ugly support trying to make it function in 1.3.
People around the world have been using mod_gzip on Apache 1.3.x for
nearly a year. Kevin has supported the product. It has been stable since
March. You've abandoned the 1.3.x people for 2.x which is getting closer
to beta. As soon as it is you'll have a copy of mod_gzip for 2.x and we
will support it.
>> I would also like to see more support for the claims that zlib is
this horrible thing that just doesn't work properly in >> a huge number
of ways, as tested by "the major internet testing companies" (whatever
the heck that means).
Sometimes I wonder where you've been. Mercury Interactive has about 60%
of the market when it comes to Internet testing. EVERY and I mean EVERY
person who is serious about benchmarking uses their Load Runner
product... Which, guess what, has just been overhauled to SUPPORT
content encoding GZIP which is being used by M$ in IIS 5.0 Guess why the
overhauled it. Because people (large financial institutions) are using
mod_gzip and Apache and IIS 5.0 and want to know if there is a
difference in performance. As the link to those stats yesterday shows,
there is indeed a BIG difference and as the latest NetCraft survey
shows, Apache is falling every month while IIS gains. This is not a
feature, this is PART OF THE SPEC and should have been included from the
get go.
Apache is failing behind the curve. People want to save bandwidth. I
don't really care if you include mod_gzip or not, the train has already
left the station on this one. Soon it will be the majority who runs
compression not the minority. If you don't believe me... Do a FTP search
for sites that carry mod_gzip. You'll be surprised. Some very smart
people have figured out that this is here to stay.
Regards
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Slemko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 12:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 04:40:15AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I suggest (again) that the entire ZLIB source code package be
> > IMMEDIATELY added to the Apache source code tree. Like... TOMORROW.
Like, no. It makes zero sense to rush into doing "something" just to do
"something" without any clear concept of where it is going or what steps
really need to be taken to get there.
> If you are willing to post a version of mod_gzip for httpd-2.0 to this
> list, I will take the time to review it. However, I think there is an
> advantage to using zlib in this particular case rather than writing
> our own compression algorithms. -- justin
Also note that, IMO, we do _NOT_ want a mod_g* in 2.0 that has a lot of
ugly support trying to make it function in 1.3.
I would also like to see more support for the claims that zlib is this
horrible thing that just doesn't work properly in a huge number of ways,
as tested by "the major internet testing companies" (whatever the heck
that means).
In any case, it makes a whole lot more sense to use a library for
supporting gzip than to stick it all as custom code into any place that
needs it (eg. ab, mod_g*, etc.), even if zlib isn't the library to use.
