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
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 :)
: 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
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
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
Kevin and I and we will support
it.
If you don't include it, all it means is another click to our website.
Later...
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add
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
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
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
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
, 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
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*
] 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
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
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
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'
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
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
[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,
[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
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
[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
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
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
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
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'
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
73 matches
Mail list logo
