"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote: > Right now we have Apache 2.0 - which aims to be an HTTP/1.1 reference > implementation. > Today that RFC includes all of the Proxy functionality. > > One thing I forsee (possibly) happening is a splintering of HTTP v.s. > HTTP-PROXY v.s. > HTTPS v.s. HTTPS over HTTP. You get my thought. > > If we will want to continue to support Apache 2.0/Proxy 2.0, while building > the next > generation of proxy protocol support, I'd suggest where mod_proxy lives today > is the > ideal location. We could begin implementation of future features, > independent of > the HTTP/1.1 specification. > > If anyone disagrees, please be vocal. I'm 100% up on tight integration > between _ALL_ > of the subprojects (and will make it so on Win32), but I'd like to know Proxy > can > continue to evolve in a module-2.1 branch while still supporting the current > implementation.
I would say the easiest way to do this is to support the current
implementation inside httpd-2.0/modules/proxy, while supporting a future
development track at httpd-proxy/module-2.1.
This way there is no confusion as to what belongs to what.
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
