> I hope I didn't sound too much flaming... I didn't take the message as a flame at all. I just wanted to clarify the position. You are correct, that this needs to be posted here as well as new-httpd. In fact, I have copied this message to new-httpd as well, in the hopes that people will keep the conversation on both lists.
> I remember at least 3 different people (don't remember their names; I > think that one of them was from IBM), volunteered to maintain it. I > guess that all of them are subscribed to this list. This is the problem. People have volunteered to be the maintainer of the proxy for years, but it never really happens. I honestly believe that a part of the reason for that is because that person must not only deal with technical arguments on this list (those are 100% valid and they help the code), but they must also deal with the people on new-httpd who don't see the need for the proxy in the main tree. By removing the proxy from the main tree, we remove the second problem, allowing more work to happen on the proxy. If we continue to distribute the proxy from the web site, I do not believe that we will decrease the number of people using it. > I believe that proxy must stay in the standard tree. If the problem is > that it is not up-to-date, then update it. If the problem is that it's > broken, then fix it. If the problem is that there is no maintainer, > then find one. But axing it, is like axing other integral parts of There is the rub. Fixing it is up to the maintainer. The problem is that currently the maintainer must be an httpd committer. By removing it from the httpd tree, we can lighten that load, so that more people can easily get commit access to the proxy and it won't fall on one person's shoulders to maintain the proxy. > Apache. I don't want to list the reasons behind this claim, because > there are many in this list that will do it better than me. But just > think about one thing: There are many fixes to the core tree of Apache > to allow proxy to run. Like proxyreq. And zillion of other things. And > if you are going to include the reverse proxy in any case, the > difference is not too high. After all, one may compile Apache without > the proxy stuff, so the weight of it is not relevant. I believe many of those "fixes" are actually incorrect in Apache 2.0. I have been investigating them slowly, but it should be 100% possible to create a fully independant proxy. If it isn't, then I would like to know why and fix those problems. > I just think about the MANY existing users of it. I'm sure there are > more users of Apache's proxy, than users of BeOS or NetWare, that you > are working so hard to let them use Apache. This is also why I started > the "war" between Ben and Ralf regarding SSL (well, now they are > fighting each other, but it's much better than the status before, when > nothing was done...). It's pity that Apache 2.0 is so close, and the > work on SSL even didn't started. There are so many users of SSL. If the > users of BeOS and NetWare and EBCDIC are so important for us, the 50,000% > more users of the proxy and 100,000% more of SSL (I threw numbers without > checking ;-), are VERY important. I don't believe that everything should > be included in the tree (somebody suggested to include mod_macro or > mod_layout, and I must admit that it sounded bad for me), but axing proxy > or mod_rewrite is not looking good for me. Eli, I truly think you and I are working for the same thing. I want to see the proxy work continue. I believe by removing the proxy from the tree, we can make it much easier for more people to contribute to the proxy. I also honestly believe that if we can prove the proxy has a healthy development team behind it, then in the future it should be very possible to fold the new proxy back into the main tree. I hope I have expressed my hopes for this well. I am not at all interested in seeing the proxy dropped from Apache. I am 100% behind making it much easier for people to help with the proxy. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
