So, who's here? Tony? My thoughts: I'll get the old code working nocache for HTTP 1.1 and CONNECT, and we'll see what happens there about sticking that bit back into the beta, for now. Obviously, without a cache, it's not really an HTTP/1.1 proxy in any way but legalistic, right? As I said before, this code is a dead end at (or before, if something else better is ready) 2.0, so there's room for a little sandbox action here on the httpd-proxy development, the way I see it.
Who's here that's a current httpd-2.0 committer, besides Ryan? Tony? 8^) Victor, Rick, any other IBM guys? That has any interest in this code, actively, that is... Anyone who wants to work on the general purpose http-2.0 caching? We'd need to run that in some mode with HTTP/1.1 policy to use it in the proxy. You'll notice I use we, so I assume there's at least one other person here interested in working on this. Perhaps this can turn into a sandbox for unrelated apache modules good enough for us to be thinking about putting them into the standard dist. I figure any current committer with a proxy idea they want to work on is welcome to discuss it here and have a source dir (sharing the build and doc dirs with the currrent code, for now) to play in. Any takers, or do I have to go trolling on new-httpd? 8^) I'm working on getting the committers list on the proxy module expanded. Reasonable sounds like the httpd-2.0 committer's list. Objections? Thoughts? Or just silence, after last week's invigorating threads about new proxy design? Chuck Chuck Murcko Topsail Group http://www.topsail.org/
