Paul Querna wrote:
- The configuration subsystem does not enable runtime changes, or the
ability to easily programmatically extend it.
Talking of configuration subsystem - it would be a good thing to expose
the configuration mechanism to modules so that they can query core
configuration para
On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Mads Toftum wrote:
That whole fascination with Dutch things seem pretty silly random
idea.
Well, we, the community, *are* going there in just over two months,
and I assume that we'll have at least a BOF to gather input/discussion.
S. (/me volunteers to put th
On 2/19/07, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:26:57PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> As long as we first teach httpd/Subversion how to deal with all of the
> spelling mistakes from us trying to spell out Dutch words. I want
> something easy to remember *and* t
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:26:57PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> As long as we first teach httpd/Subversion how to deal with all of the
> spelling mistakes from us trying to spell out Dutch words. I want
> something easy to remember *and* type! -- justin
How about: D
That whole fascination w
On 2/14/07, Sander Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My delightful pleasure. We can really go to town on this. Like,
neighborhoods and places in Amsterdam:
As long as we first teach httpd/Subversion how to deal with all of the
spelling mistakes from us trying to spell out Dutch words. I want
so
On 2/14/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dumb Question: Would all this mean a total(?) rewrite of APR as well?
A total rewrite of APR seems unlikely, but if there are changes people
want made to APR in order to better support new functionality in HTTPD
I don't see why it wouldn't
Dumb Question: Would all this mean a total(?) rewrite of APR as well?
-- dims
On 2/14/07, Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:10:19PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> But do we really want to start by calling it 3.0? How about if we
> work off of a few code name
On Feb 14, 2007, at 3:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Hey Dirk or Sander(s) - can we have a few cool sounding easy to spell
place names from the Amsterdam area?
My delightful pleasure. We can really go to town on this. Like,
neighborhoods and places in Amsterdam:
Jordaan
Vondelpark (mo
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> I was planning on creating
>
>repos/asf/httpd/sandbox/amsterdam/
>
> and then moving the GSoC stuff to other subdirectories of that
> sandbox. I prefer to think of branches as forks off of trunk,
> whereas the sandbox would not be.
Ok... that's another way.
http
On Feb 14, 2007, at 3:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
+1 to moving goal and discussion to a SVN file and starting a sandbox
(same level as tags/branches?)
Nooo - it is another sort of branch/, so belongs there.
We could have a separate place, but why? branches/n.n.x s
On 2/14/07, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 to giving it a code name; '3.0' to me is just an easy way to explain
'this is a major departure from the current 2.x'.
I vote for using "Monsters Inc" characters...say Sulley or Boo. =)
FWIW, I spawned this off Paul's suggestion on IRC of p
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Hey Dirk or Sander(s) - can we have a few cool sounding easy to spell
place names from the Amsterdam area?
The Vondelpark springs to mind - a very cool place to be in summer :)
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Paul Querna wrote:
>
> +1 to moving goal and discussion to a SVN file and starting a sandbox
> (same level as tags/branches?)
Nooo - it is another sort of branch/, so belongs there.
We could have a separate place, but why? branches/n.n.x should always
sort before branches/async-foo, branches/am
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
>
>> I believe the httpd project is ready for a push towards the next major
>> version.
>
> So do I. In fact I was just about to create a sandbox for that purpose
> yesterday, but had to get the crypto stuff sorted out fir
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:10:19PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> But do we really want to start by calling it 3.0? How about if we
> work off of a few code names first? Say, for example, "amsterdam".
> The reason is because there will be some overlap between ideas of
> how to do certain thing
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
>
>> I believe the httpd project is ready for a push towards the next major
>> version.
>
> But do we really want to start by calling it 3.0? How about if we
> work off of a few code names first? Say, for example, "amster
On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
I believe the httpd project is ready for a push towards the next major
version.
So do I. In fact I was just about to create a sandbox for that purpose
yesterday, but had to get the crypto stuff sorted out first.
But do we really want to start
Make everything possible into a hook or use the provider model.
Simple example: the way we determine if a connection can be kept alive is a
monolithic function. This should be a hook.
Disk I/O (read/write/seek, etc.) could be abstracted by providers, for example.
Maybe we need full blown VF
On Feb 14, 2007, at 2:32 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
I believe the httpd project is ready for a push towards the next major
version.
- Async IO will not work in the core without committing more evil
hacks,
that will make the code harder to understand and follow.
- Async IO will not work correc
Paul Querna wrote:
> I believe the httpd project is ready for a push towards the next major
> version.
>
> I believe everyone involved has learned many things from 2.x. I wasn't
> here for all of the early 2.x development, so it is very easy to say I
> am naive in the scope of something like push
On 2/14/07, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I personally believe the push for 3.0 needs to be focused on how to
create a positive scratch your own itch for most of the developer. So,
in that spirit, what bothers everyone else about 2.x?
- Things I find lacking in 2.x are like you said
I believe the httpd project is ready for a push towards the next major
version.
I believe everyone involved has learned many things from 2.x. I wasn't
here for all of the early 2.x development, so it is very easy to say I
am naive in the scope of something like pushing for 3.0.
Today, I view the
22 matches
Mail list logo
