Hello dear dev@, I'd like to propose that we rewrite and rethink modules.apache.org. For those of you who detest long emails (henceforth known as the TL;DRs), just scroll to the bottom for a quick summary.
While modules.a.o does provide a mediocre service to those looking for a module, I'd like to think we can do a lot better. I've split this into topics, in which I'll go through each aspect of what I find needs improvement, and which benefits could come from this, as well as some more proactive reasons as to why we should rewrite/rethink this site: --------------------- General look and feel --------------------- The first thing that strikes me about modules.a.o is that it's not so much an index, but more like a hastily thrown together list of modules. It offers no detailed insight into each module, and clicking on either a module or the browse link takes you to a search function, which at first makes you think you may have clicked the wrong link or that the site is broken. The browse feature has no categories or ways to actually index modules other than listing them alphabetically, which makes searching quite tedious. I have to use the search feature in my browser if I am to find for instance a GPL licensed module which deals with security. Browsing and searching is virtually the same, as in there is no difference between clicking the browse button or clicking the search button and searching for an empty string. This gives me the impression that the search/browse feature has never really been thought through. ---------------- Out-of-datedness ---------------- The site clearly shows signs of not having been updated in over a decade. You have the option between a 1.3.x or 2.x module - where is the distinction between 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and trunk? Some modules have not been updated since 1998, yet they are still on the list? Surely, there should be some sort of limit on how many _decades_ your module can remain on that list without being updated. This should be an index of modules you can still use, not modules that only works in 1.3. --------------------- Indexing and browsing --------------------- Indexing...what indexing, there is none. Everything is just alphabetical, or you can search for something (the search page doesn't say what field you're searching?). There are no categories, no ways to limit your search other than specifying a very specific string (which probably won't match), no sorting by relevance, popularity, stability, how up-to-date the module is, etc. There is no way to limit a search to specific license - I'd like to be able to just view ASLv2 licensed modules, but I can't. ---------- Moderation ---------- The criteria for having a module listed is nowhere to be found. The approval process is a mystery (supposedly we have two people working on this, who may or may not have the time), there is no way to see if your module has been approved or rejected (as a personal experience with it, I have yet to find out if the modules I submitted last year were rejected or just mothballed for all eternity), there seems to be no reminders sent out if an approval request is not handled. Requiring a special "task force" seems like not-so-much the Apache Way. I'd like to see that we can collaborate as committers on this, much like we do on the comments system, where anyone within the ASF with an interest in helping out can do so, and where the procedures are both publicly described and logged in a manner that enables others to see if something requires attention. ------------ "What's hip" ------------ I'd like to see popular modules included as well - there is no mention of mod_php, mod_spdy, mod_pagespeed, mod_wsgi and so on, yet these are probably the modules that people are most inclined to go search for. While it's generally a good idea to let module authors contribute with their own modules to the list, I'd also like for this to be a place where you can find out more information about a particular module, even if it's a popular one with a corporation or foundation backing it. I'd also very much like the ability for people to either rate or in some way discuss modules; How they work, what could be improved, how to set them up and so on - some form of forum integration where a module can be put up for debate. I'd also like both users and/or authors to be able to rate their modules in terms of stability, usefulness (general purpose or niche product), popularity (how widespread is the use of this module?) and so forth. This could help people in need of a "cookie cutter" web server, as they could simply go to the site, view what's the most popular and used modules, see if/how they work, and find out where to get them. ----------------------------------------- Collaborating and eating our own dog food ----------------------------------------- Now comes the part where some (those that know me well) will chuckle, some will go "pfeh!", while others may actually think this is a good idea: I'd like to propose - if people are in favour of this idea - that we do three big changes: 1) I'd like to scrap all existing data. Out with it! Information that has not been updated since 1998 does not belong on a site that is supposed to reflect what's currently available, and the current database has way too few fields to actually make the information useful to visitors. If people care about their modules, I'm sure they'd be happy to resubmit it with a more detailed description, and for the more popular ones, I'm sure we have a committer or two, who can fill out the blanks on those. 2) I'd like to propose that we develop a new site using httpd 2.4/2.5 and mod_lua (from trunk - yes, this is where the chuckles and pfehs may commence) as the scripting engine. We need ways to showcase this module, and using it ourselves it the perfect way to do so. I know some of you have expressed interest in getting to know the module a bit better, and this would be a perfect opportunity to do so. With it we have not only a way to show many of the ways it can be used, but also a fully flexible, fast, efficient language with all the fixings needed to operate a dynamic, vibrant site, just like we do with comments.apache.org. 3) I'd like to propose that this rewrite/rethink becomes a collaboration between more than just me and my shadow. I'd be happy to do most of the grunt work, but I'd really love it if others (you know who you are!) would help out, especially in the overall principles of how such a site would come together. This would not only be the chance to make something great, but also a chance to learn a bit about whichever language we decide on in the end. This collaboration could be done over subversion, and meetings/discussions could either be via email, or on IRC (we have a new fancy secretary function, courtesy of wilderness.apache.org). I could go on, but then I suspect those of you who are not yet inclined to go TL;DR would do so - I hope you understand the points I'm trying to make here. So, to summarize: - modules.apache.org needs a general overhaul and a more detailed, dynamic approach to its way of handling/relaying information. - I propose we rebuild it from scratch, possibly using mod_lua as the driving engine, to showcase some of its uses. - I propose that we scrap the old data and start anew with modules that are still usable for httpd 2.2 and above. - I propose that this be a collaboration between those who express an interest in being part of it. - I propose that moderation/approval on the site be a joint venture between all committers who themselves have already shown merit to join the ASF. Questions, remarks, comments (whether they be snide or not), ideas and, most important, feedback, is most welcome on this topic! If the feedback is generally positive and in favour of a rethink/rebuild, I will propose a vote later this month, and then we'll take it from there. With regards, Daniel.
