RE: why not post mod_gzip 2.0? (was: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0)

2001-09-08 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
Message- From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 12:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: why not post mod_gzip 2.0? (was: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0) Why won't you post mod_gzip 2.0 *today*? Because Apache 2.x is not STABLE, not In BETA

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-07 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] If you want to 'converse' with Peter then book a flight to Denver. This is EMAIL. Well, D'oh! The whole Apache Software Foundation is about people conversing - and most of the time we just use email. If you can't figure that out, how should

re: why not post mod_gzip 2.0? (was: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0)

2001-09-06 Thread Gomez Henri
You and Kevin never answered my simple question: Why won't you post mod_gzip 2.0 *today*? Kevin, the best way to have mod_gzip in Apache 2.0 is to make it available. You knows i'm using it on Apache 1.3 for many times and be more than happy to see such an excellent works on 2.0 :)

RE: why not post mod_gzip 2.0? (was: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0)

2001-09-06 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: why not post mod_gzip 2.0? (was: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0) On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:46:55PM -0600, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: I suppose the only thing we can do

RE: why not post mod_gzip 2.0? (was: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0)

2001-09-06 Thread Gomez Henri
Why won't you post mod_gzip 2.0 *today*? Because Apache 2.x is not STABLE, not In BETA and the API set is not yet FROZEN... When it is, we will release mod_gzip as a third party module, which we will support and maintain. There is actually many alpha release, and many of then are more than

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work. Peter -Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian... are you

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
Peter J. Cranstone wrote: After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work. Oh? Then what is the explanation for Kevin publicly soliciting an individual to do something that recent discussion has shown the group considers moot? Regardless of facts, it is perception that matters. Not speaking

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
mod_gz to httpd-2.0 Peter J. Cranstone wrote: After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work. Oh? Then what is the explanation for Kevin publicly soliciting an individual to do something that recent discussion has shown the group considers moot? Regardless of facts, it is perception

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Ryan Bloom
I really should just ignore this. But oh well From a political standpoint I'm pissed that Covalent Technologies can cut a deal with Compaq for the new Compaq Apache server (wonder if it will ship with or without compression (details are tough to find on this whole deal). But you

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Thomas Eibner
Okay, I'll bite. On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:46:55PM -0600, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: [Snip: nothing that hasn't been said in this thread before] If it's not technical, then it's social (you just plain don't like us... Not a problem) or political (the powers that be don't like us... Again not

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 Okay, I'll bite. On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:46:55PM -0600, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: [Snip: nothing that hasn't been said in this thread before] If it's not technical, then it's social (you just plain don't like us... Not a problem

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Ryan Bloom
From a political standpoint I'm pissed that Covalent Technologies can cut a deal with Compaq for the new Compaq Apache server (wonder if it will ship with or without compression (details are tough to find on this whole deal). This is news to me, and certainly no permission has been

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
, the companies plan to announce Monday. -Original Message- From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rodent of Unusual Size Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 From a political standpoint I'm pissed

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
Peter J. Cranstone wrote: Conversation is over. I have nothing more to add. This whole conversation is degenerating into meaningless nonsense. Someone else can carry the thread. This clever technique of ducking out of the conversation rather than answering pointed questions is just *so*

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 Peter J. Cranstone wrote: Conversation is over. I have nothing more to add. This whole conversation is degenerating into meaningless nonsense. Someone else can carry the thread. This clever technique of ducking out of the conversation rather than answering pointed

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
Peter J. Cranstone wrote: It was on a recent CNET release: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6963955.html Compaq Computer has signed a deal with Covalent Technology to jointly develop and market Covalent's Apache Web server software, the companies plan to announce Monday. Thank you

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
Peter J. Cranstone wrote: Kiss my ass... And now to the invective. I have work to do. Which apparently does not include answering questions about your previous posts. Well, you did answer one of the ones about the 'Compaq Apache Server' thing, so thanks for that. You want to continue

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread TOKILEY
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:16:59 EDT, Marc Slemko wrote... This is not technical, this is social and political. Then keep it off the forum... you fucking didactic self-righteous asshole. When was the last fucking time you posted anything useful? Send your 'social and political'

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread TOKILEY
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:16:59 EDT, Marc wrote... After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work. Oh? Then what is the explanation for Kevin publicly soliciting an individual to do something that recent discussion has shown the group considers moot? I asked him what he

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread TOKILEY
In a message dated 01-09-05 16:14:01 EDT, you write: This is news to me, and certainly no permission has been given to either Compaq nor Covalent to call anything a 'Compaq Apache server.' I am on the ASF board and I can tell you this has not come before us. Actually... it's called the

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 01-09-05 14:16:59 EDT, Marc Slemko wrote... This is not technical, this is social and political. Then keep it off the forum... you fucking didactic self-righteous asshole. As I said, invective time. As I also said, except to Peter alone,

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 01-09-05 16:14:01 EDT, you write: This is news to me, and certainly no permission has been given to either Compaq nor Covalent to call anything a 'Compaq Apache server.' I am on the ASF board and I can tell you this has not come before

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Charles Randall
From: Peter J. Cranstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Kiss my ass... *delurk* That'll motivate three +1's for mod_gz real quick. :^) (No need for anyone to reply. Just cluttering the list with sophomoric humor.) -Charels

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you moonlight as a preacher or something? Nope. Do you judge everyone around you like this? Considering that it was an observation rather than a judgement, I suppose I can say that yes, I make observations like that all the time. If you want to 'converse' with

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-05 Thread TOKILEY
In a message dated 01-09-05 17:43:30 EDT, you write: From: Peter J. Cranstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Kiss my ass... *delurk* That'll motivate three +1's for mod_gz real quick. :^) (No need for anyone to reply. Just cluttering the list with sophomoric humor.) -Charels

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-04 Thread Günter Knauf
Hi Kevin, Guenter Knauf wrote... Hi, I was glad as Ian contributed his mod_gz; I tested it on Linux and Win32 and it works for me. What did you test? that it compiles, loads into server and compresses. How 'heavily loaded' was the Server? you're right, I did only a quick test with some

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-04 Thread TOKILEY
In a message dated 01-09-04 09:35:50 EDT, Jim wrote... That's right and one of them is... Will Apache accept ZLIB into the Apache source tree in either source or binary library format for all platforms. Check one box only... [__] Yes [__] No Actually, it's not a

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-04 Thread TOKILEY
In a message dated 01-09-04 12:39:44 EDT, Guenter writes... Guenter Knauf wrote... Hi, I was glad as Ian contributed his mod_gz; I tested it on Linux and Win32 and it works for me. What did you test? that it compiles, loads into server and compresses. How 'heavily loaded'

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-04 Thread Ian Holsman
On Tue, 2001-09-04 at 12:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ASIDE: You really only need the 'compression' part of it. You are a Server, not a client. we also can be a client. think mod-proxy ..The Weekend Warrior Yours... Kevin Kiley -- Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Performance

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-04 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 05:47:02PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: ... I have a big problem with this. We had a hard enough time contributing patches back to MM. The only reason we keep expat and pcre up to date, is that we NEVER make any changes to them. I would be very much against adding zlib

zlib inclusion and mod_gz(ip) recap (was: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0)

2001-09-04 Thread Greg Stein
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 03:29:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Will the Apache group accept the ZLIB source code into the distribution tree at this time?... [__] Yes [__] No No. The zlib library is popular enough (read: typically installed) that we will link against it, rather than

the rollup issue (was: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0)

2001-09-04 Thread Greg Stein
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 06:19:32PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: ... 3) I don't believe that we should be adding every possible module to the core distribution. I personally think we should leave the core as minimal as possible, and only add more modules if they implement a part of the HTTP

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-04 Thread Ian Holsman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 01-09-04 19:17:25 EDT, Ian writes... ASIDE: You really only need the 'compression' part of it. You are a Server, not a client. we also can be a client. think mod-proxy What current ( or future ) operation would require mod_proxy to

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-04 Thread Ryan Bloom
On Tuesday 04 September 2001 18:23, Greg Stein wrote: On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 05:47:02PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: ... I have a big problem with this. We had a hard enough time contributing patches back to MM. The only reason we keep expat and pcre up to date, is that we NEVER make any

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread TOKILEY
In a message dated 01-09-03 04:55:08 EDT, Henri Gomez writes... Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to use gzip, then zip your data before putting it on-line. That doesn't help generated pages, but perl can already do gzip, as can PHP. Let me expose my mod_gzip user

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Gomez Henri
Hi Henri... This is Kevin Kiley. It isn't necessary to ask Jean or Mark about leaks in ZLIB with regards to mod_gzip or add any 'warnings' because mod_gzip does NOT USE ZLIB. Hi Kevin, happy to see you there :))) You're right, now the gzip code in included in mod_gzip.c and didn't rely anymore

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Ryan Bloom
On Monday 03 September 2001 03:32, Gomez Henri wrote: You're right, now the gzip code in included in mod_gzip.c and didn't rely anymore on the zlib external lib. And I didn't even noticed :( Question, when did you included the gzip code in mod_gzip ? I remember I've to add -lz -lm when

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Jim Jagielski
At 12:42 PM -0600 9/2/01, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: It's an amazing analysis of mod_gzip on HTTP traffic and includes all different browser types. Here is what is amazing, check out the saved column and the average savings for all the different stats... About 51% That's a HUGE benefit to ALL

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
-Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 9:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 At 12:42 PM -0600 9/2/01, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: It's an amazing analysis of mod_gzip on HTTP traffic and includes all

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Eli Marmor
Jim Jagielski wrote: 2. ZLIB issues: Because mod_gzip uses ZLIB, we also need to concern ourselves of the nature (patent, licensing, etc...) of that as well. mod_gzip does NOT use zlib. mod_gz uses zlib. -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO, Founder Netmask (El-Mar) Internet

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 04:40:15AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest (again) that the entire ZLIB source code package be IMMEDIATELY added to the Apache source code tree. Like... TOMORROW. It seems silly to discuss adding anything like mod_gz ( or our Enhanced ApacheBench or any

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Marc Slemko
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 04:40:15AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest (again) that the entire ZLIB source code package be IMMEDIATELY added to the Apache source code tree. Like... TOMORROW. Like, no. It makes zero sense to rush into

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
From: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 12:57 PM I also think that we do not need to redistribute zlib in our source tree. I think it is common enough now that most OSes come with it. (I look at how we handle the OpenSSL library and think zlib falls in

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
people have figured out that this is here to stay. Regards Peter -Original Message- From: Marc Slemko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 12:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Marc Slemko
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: Marc, It makes zero sense to rush into doing something just to do something without any clear concept of where it is going or what steps really need to be taken to get there. Here's a concept Save bandwidth. Here's another one, it's

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 01:36:18PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: I have no issue with dropping the current (and httpd-maintained) zlib, returning all patches to the authors. If there are problems with threading support + leaks, we will need to fix them if we will call this 'supported'.

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Thomas Eibner
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 12:22:33PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: My point is that almost every OS comes with a copy of zlib now. We can't expect most people to have pcre and expat, but I think we can with zlib though. I'd rather not build zlib if we didn't need to. The exception here

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Jerry Baker
Thomas Eibner wrote: On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 12:22:33PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: My point is that almost every OS comes with a copy of zlib now. We can't expect most people to have pcre and expat, but I think we can with zlib though. I'd rather not build zlib if we didn't need

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 01:37:38PM -0600, Jerry Baker wrote: Of course, if it's made as easy as dropping the zlib dist into /srclib (like OpenSSL), then it doesn't matter to me. Oh, I see Makefile.win now. Yes, the Unix build doesn't do that, but for Win32, I bet this is a reasonable

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
. This is my last 2 cents worth. Time's a wasting. Peter -Original Message- From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 2:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 Marc, Rather than continue this thread let's see if we

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Marc Slemko
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: Marc, Rather than continue this thread let's see if we can put this subject into the end zone. There are numerous unresolved issues and unanswered questions that have been brought up. The only way to get anywhere is to change them from

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Graham Leggett
Ryan Bloom wrote: You know what's really funny? Every time this has been brought up before, the Apache core has always said, if you want to have gzip'ed data, then gzip it when you create the site. That way, your computer doesn't have to waste cycles while it is trying hard to serve

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-03 Thread Ryan Bloom
On Monday 03 September 2001 11:36, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: From: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 12:57 PM I also think that we do not need to redistribute zlib in our source tree. I think it is common enough now that most OSes come with it. (I

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 06:19:32PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: On Saturday 01 September 2001 14:56, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I have a few problems with this. 1) We have consistantly declined to accept the mod_Gzip from remote communications. mod_gzip implements the gzip algorithm. It also

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Eli Marmor
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: mod_gzip implements the gzip algorithm. It also happens to be a 300k source file (~11,000 lines). mod_gz is a 14k file and is 446 lines and relies on zlib. Knowing the people on this list I will bet that the size of the file went a long way for us not accepting

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Greg Stein
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 07:50:19PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: On Saturday 01 September 2001 18:53, Cliff Woolley wrote: On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: ... 2) I keep hearing that zlib has more memory leaks than a sieve. Maybe it does, but that can be dealt with. Even so, it

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Sander Striker
Hi, From what I have seen on the list I am on the +1 side of adding mod_gz(ip) to the distribution. Ofcourse, my vote doesn't count since I don't have httpd commit. I find the following arguments convincing (summarized): - The gzip content encoding is part of the HTTP spec. - Most clients

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Daniel Veillard
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 06:19:32PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: zlib has more memory leaks than a sieve. 3) I don't believe that we should be adding every possible module to the core distribution. I personally think we should leave the core as minimal as possible, and only add more modules if

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Günter Knauf
Hi, I was glad as Ian contributed his mod_gz; I tested it on Linux and Win32 and it works for me. The problem I see with 3rd party modules is not mainly that they are 'invisible', I've found tons of modules and often 3 or more for the same purpose, but many modules were only written for Unix

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Peter J. Cranstone
will release mod_gzip for 2.x under exactly the same license as 1.x version. end Regards Peter -Original Message- From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 6:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 Hi, From what I have

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Günter Knauf
Hi, A couple of other issues. - Netware. With a little help this can be fixed. However the I will provide any help I can give; I'm able to compile and run the module, I've compiled the debug version and have already sent an output to Kevin; the issue is that the work files are always

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
From: Jerry Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 10:32 PM Ryan Bloom wrote: You know what's really funny? Every time this has been brought up before, the Apache core has always said, if you want to have gzip'ed data, then gzip it when you create the site. That

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
Ryan Bloom wrote: I believe that putting a module into the core says that we are willing to support it, and that we believe the quality of the module is as high as the rest of the core. With that I can certainly agree. I would like to make that statement as few times as possible. See,

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
Ryan Bloom wrote: If we don't need it in the core, it shouldn't be there. Since there is no reason to drive 100+ MPH, auto manufacturers should not make vehicles capable of going that fast. 'Needed in the core' -- what of the current modules are 'needed by the core?' Nothing in the core

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
From: Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 10:50 PM On Saturday 01 September 2001 20:10, Cliff Woolley wrote: Perhaps modules distributed through official httpd subprojects are more visible/more trusted, but we don't really know one way or the other on that

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 12:43:09PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: The gzip content encoding is part of the HTTP spec. By implementation, or reference? Sure Content-encoding is part of the spec, and it's defined to allow authors to extend their support to any number of encodings, and

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread TOKILEY
Hello all... Kevin Kiley here... Here is a mixture of comment/response regarding mod_gzip and the ongoing conversation(s)... There is a (short) SUMMARY at the bottom. Justin ErenKrantz's original post... Ian has posted his mod_gz filter before, now I'd like to give it a +1. I told him I'd

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread George Schlossnagle
In contrast, with an 11,000-line implementation like mod_gzip, it's much less likely that other developers will be able to troubleshoot the code quickly if it breaks while the original authors are on vacation. A quick perusal of thesource for the 1.3 version of mod_gzip (which I've been

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-02 Thread Pier Fumagalli
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to use gzip, then zip your data before putting it on-line. That doesn't help generated pages, but perl can already do gzip, as can PHP. And Tomcat 4.x :) Pier

[PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
Ian has posted his mod_gz filter before, now I'd like to give it a +1. I told him I'd look at it a while ago, but never got a chance to do so. So, I spent this morning cleaning up the configuration and a bit of the code to fit our style (nothing major). I'd like to add this to the

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Ryan Bloom
On Saturday 01 September 2001 14:56, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I have a few problems with this. 1) We have consistantly declined to accept the mod_Gzip from remote communications. 2) I keep hearing that zlib has more memory leaks than a sieve. 3) I don't believe that we should be adding

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: On Saturday 01 September 2001 14:56, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I have a few problems with this. 1) We have consistantly declined to accept the mod_Gzip from remote communications. That's true, though that was for 1.3. Just now with Peter's message is

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
From: Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 8:57 PM Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3) I don't believe that we should be adding every possible module to the core distribution. I personally think we should leave the core as minimal as possible, and

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Ryan Bloom
On Saturday 01 September 2001 18:53, Cliff Woolley wrote: On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: On Saturday 01 September 2001 14:56, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I have a few problems with this. 1) We have consistantly declined to accept the mod_Gzip from remote communications. That's

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: Their code has always been open source. Their 1.3 code is basically based on code from Krow at /. I know that. But the 2.0 version is supposed to be vastly different (less complex) than the 1.3 version, from what I remember. I'd just like to see it.

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Cliff Woolley
Taking a step back from gz for a moment, and speaking in general: On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Ian Holsman wrote: 3rd party modules are invisible to most people, I'll agree with that statement... we can tell ourselves that it's okay to push off modules onto third-party distribution, but the fact is

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Jerry Baker
Ryan Bloom wrote: You know what's really funny? Every time this has been brought up before, the Apache core has always said, if you want to have gzip'ed data, then gzip it when you create the site. That way, your computer doesn't have to waste cycles while it is trying hard to serve

RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Padwa, Daniel
You know what's really funny? Every time this has been brought up before, the Apache core has always said, if you want to have gzip'ed data, then gzip it when you create the site. That way, your computer doesn't have to waste cycles while it is trying hard to serve requests. I personally

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Ryan Bloom
On Saturday 01 September 2001 20:10, Cliff Woolley wrote: Taking a step back from gz for a moment, and speaking in general: On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Ian Holsman wrote: 3rd party modules are invisible to most people, I'll agree with that statement... we can tell ourselves that it's okay to push

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
On 2001-09-01 at 18h19, possibly To [EMAIL PROTECTED] et al., the keyboard of Ryan Bloom chattered: 3) I don't believe that we should be adding every possible module to the core distribution. I personally think we should leave the core as minimal as possible, and only add more modules if

Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0

2001-09-01 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
On 2001-09-01 at 20h50, possibly To [EMAIL PROTECTED] et al., the keyboard of Ryan Bloom chattered: Putting every module into the core is NOT the answer to this problem. True. IMNSHO, Apache should be a minamilistic web server. IMNSHO, strong disagreement. It should be able to be