Greg Stein wrote:
> > 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.
>
> [ this is actually quite hard to do because of the Reply-To munging ]
Heh!
I'm lucky to have the honor to be subscribed to both lists ;-)
> Exactly. And we bring up tossing the proxy, and people jump back in for a
> week, then go away and proxy languishes again. Chuck has now said "I've got
> some patches!". They'll get applied, and we won't see him again for several
> months (just like last time).
I want to be practical. Let me, please, analyze the status and suggest
a compromise that will be good for all sides ("win-win"). Let's inspect
the problems one by one:
1. mod_proxy is not compiled under 2.0:
It was already OK with 2.0a8 (IIRC), and with Chuck patches it is
being fixed again (maybe it's already OK; I must admit that I didn't
have chance to check his patches).
2. mod_proxy isn't running correctly / functionality doesn't cover the
1.3 status:
See #1 above.
3. It is not maintained / there is no maintainer:
Well, YESTERDAY, you were right. CURRENTLY, *TODAY*, it is
maintained. You can't suggest the axing today. Tomorrow? Maybe. If
it is important for you that it will be maintained, then you must be
be glad that your "threats" caused a shock for some people, and they
are (re)starting to volunteer.
4. People appear for a week, out of the blue, after a threat from you,
but disappear for 2-3 months, and then appear back:
Oh! Finally we get to the real problem. So here is my suggestion (a
compromise that should make everybody happy):
Instead of immediately axing the proxy, just chance the frequency of
the threats from once per 6 months, to once per a month, or even bi-
weekly. Two scenarios may happen then:
a. The proxy users/lovers/maintainers/programmers are in a permanent
shock, and always maintain and support it. This is the best for
everybody, I believe. And it resolves problem #4.
b. Otherwise, if your "threats" don't wake people up, just realize
your threat and axe it (after voting, I guess). It looks as the
dream of some people here, isn't it? ;-)
5. The beta must be launched, but the proxy is not yet ready:
Well, first of all I'm not sure that it will not be ready in 2-3
days; Now, with Chuck, Philippe, and others, investing efforts in
that, there may be a surprise.
But even if the big day arrives, and the proxy is not yet ready,
then you may make it "experimental" (i.e. it already has its own
directory, and it doesn't make sense to move it, but it may become a
module which is compiled in *ONLY* if the user/configurator asks for
it explicitly, or in other words - it is excluded even from the
"most" option. In addition, you may add warning. Once Apache 2.0beta
is shipped with such a module, I'm convinced many people will make
their best to make it better; After all, this is one of the purposes
of having a beta, isn't it? This is the key point here; If we really
want to make mod_proxy working and stable, the best chance to do it
is by including it in a stuff that is going to be very widely
spread).
6. Some of mod_proxy functionality is duplicated by squid:
Here, my compromise doesn't bridge the arguing opinions. However, I
must disagree here: First, it's only "some" functionality. Second,
almost any part of Apache is duplicated by another Open-Source
Software. Third, licenses are not compatible. Fourth, there are
already many users who depend on mod_proxy functionality, and most
can't just migrate to squid with no pain. But the fifth one, is the
most important: Sometimes, the combination of mod_proxy with other
features of Apache, is required. In better cases, we can just add
another tier, by chaining squid to an existing Apache (ending up
with much more overhead), but in most cases, it's irrelevant. And
with the filtered I/O, many new possibilities and tricks become
possible by the combination of Apache and mod_proxy. I believe that
Apache 2.0 may become a platform for new applications and
transformations, based on this combination.
In any case, mod_proxy doesn't compete against squid, and is not
"better" or "worse" than it; These are just two different products,
that only their very basic functionality (yes, including the reverse
proxy) is similar.
So here is again my compromised suggestion: Wait a few days or a few
weeks, and see what's happenning with mod_proxy. Once a few days /
weeks paased with no serious maintenance, re-"threat", and if nobody
responds, vote for axing it. If, meanwhile, Apache 2.0 beta must be
announced and mod_proxy is not in a stable status, follow #5 above.
--
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
