I should probably comment on this. I am the person who suggesting removing the proxy from the tree. I am also one of the people who did the port to 2.0, just to prove that I am not against the proxy.
What I am against, is having a bunch of code in the tree that doesn't compile when it is downloaded, and hasn't been worked on in ages. The current proposal doesn't kill the proxy, it removes it with an option to add it back. The idea is that the proxy will be moved off to another repository, where people who want to work on it can easily. All comments can be sent here, and the CVS tree would have it's own mailing list as well. When the code becomes stable and there is an active maintainer, somebody who makes sure the code always compiles, the proxy may get back into the httpd-2.0 tree. If it doesn't, the proxy would be a sub-project of httpd, and it would have a prominant spot on the httpd.apache.org web page. This is just a way to shink the size of the httpd tarball, by removing some code that isn't currently being maintained. Ryan On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Eli Marmor wrote: > Hi list! > > Are you aware of the discussion at [email protected] to punt the > Proxy from the source tree? > > Very strong opinions are expressed there, against mod_proxy as a part > of an HTTP server, against mod_proxy as a module without a maintainer, > etc., etc. > > I believe that most of us opposed these opinions. On the other hand, > most of us don't have time to join the main list and receive the > zillion messages, so are not aware of that discussion, and almost > nobody tries to argue with the opinions there. > > I welcome subscribers of modproxy-dev to join that list (instruction > at http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#http-dev) and > express our side. To see the opinions I mentioned, please look at the > following threads: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=97595977400003&w=2&r=1 > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-new-httpd&m=98140196311131&w=2 > > The best thing we can contribute to the discussion, is somebody who > will take the responsibility to be the official maintainer of this > module. > > But even if you can't do it, you can still: > > 1. Write about the importance of the module. > 2. Emphasize the extra importance of the reverse proxy, and that if it > is included, it will make sense to include the whole proxy. > 3. Features (including ease, weight, rewrite, etc.) which are not > supported by squid but only by Apache. > 4. your experience with it (e.g. "I'm the webmaster of ...... and we > use mod_proxy under 200,000 machines to cache the traffic of our > 120 million users. Axing mod_proxy from the source tree, will not > only cause us a problem, but also lower its netcraft statistics > from 60% to 2%"). > 5. Try to convince that today, with the new mechanism of filtered I/O > in Apache 2.0, mod_proxy is an integral part of Apache more than > ever. IIRC, one of the subscribers here, told about his experience > with porting the proxy to use the filters API, and it sounded > great. > 6. Send patches. > 7. Tell them about the great success that Apache 2 is going to have: > After 4 years of development, and without key parts such as proxy > and SSL (now even mod_rewrite is under danger!), I'm convinced that > Apache 2 will double netcraft statistics (from 60% to 120%! ;-) > > Now seriously (contrary to 7): Apache 2.0 is really going to be a > great thing; It will be pity if the key parts of it will be missing. > So open your mouth and speak. > -- > Eli Marmor > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CTO, Founder > Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. > __________________________________________________________ > Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. > Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 > Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel > > _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
