> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Rainer Jung > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 15:10 > An: dev@httpd.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers > > On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy > branch, with the > > intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the > branch used the > > same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory > that includes > > the balancer methods (as well as the config magic > associated with it). > > > > However, if that will be a impediment to actually *getting* these > > backports into 2.2, then I'm willing to keep the old structure... > > > > So my question is: if to be able to easily backport the > various trunk > > proxy improvements into 2.2, we also need to backport the dir > > structure as well, is that OK? I don't want to work down that > > path only to have it wasted work because people think that such a > > directory restructure doesn't make sense within a 2.2.x release. > > > > PS: NO, I am not considering this for 2.2.12! :) > > I guess at the heart of this is the question, how likely we break some > part of the users build process for 2.2.x. My feeling is, that the > additional sub directory for the balancing method implementations is a > small change and users build process should not break due to this > additional one directory. > > On the positive side apart from easier backports: the new subdirectory > might make people more curious on how to add a custom > balancing method, > so we get a slightly better visibility for the existing > provider interface.
The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x as the balancers are now in separate modules. Thus I am -0.5 on backporting this directory structure to 2.2.x. Regards Rüdiger
