You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org> on 2002/07/26 22:23:57 UTC
Removing modules
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 01:52:03PM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> +1, personally I would like to see it added back to the Apache modules.
> I'm not sure why it was removed. Maybe somebody could shed some light on
> that.
mod_auth_ldap has been like mod_proxy - in, out, in, out.
I wouldn't mind seeing it folded back in. But, I know that a lot
of people were against it last time.
I think we may need to come up with a more coherent policy for
the unbundled modules in the HTTP Server project. (I don't know
if the PMC wants to discuss this or not.)
In the past, people have suggested a CPAN/PEAR-approach where
modules are downloaded when needed. This way we could reduce
the stock distribution to the bare bones. We would also have
to rethink our configuration policy (almost to make it like
Perl does - interactive). -- justin
Re: Removing modules
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 09:52:39PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >Source. Binaries are too troublesome. -- justin
>
> It would not be difficult to support binaries as well.
If you tie it to the compiler, linker, OS, compiler/linker flags
combination, perhaps you have a shot. If any of those change,
you're SOL.
Regardless, I'd like to see source support first. Then, we could
add binaries.
Not that I have the time right now to do this. -- justin
Re: Removing modules
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I don't know that module-by-module binary downloads make sense,
> since they all have to be tagged, are specific to a given core release,
> and possibly specific to given module releases as well [think of a DAV
> provider, which needs to be in sync with the core and dav/main srcs].
Dependancies is going to have to be a feature of any CPAN style system.
For example the module proxy_ftp requires mod_proxy which requires
apache core.
On the binary side we could support these dependancies using RPM, etc,
or maybe creating tar files that can be overlaid on top of one another.
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm
"There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: Removing modules
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 06:12 PM 7/28/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 08:35:13PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > >In the past, people have suggested a CPAN/PEAR-approach where
> > >modules are downloaded when needed.
> >
> > Modules in source form or binary form?
>
>Source. Binaries are too troublesome. -- justin
It would not be difficult to support binaries as well.
Not only can you download modules from CPAN ... but also packages.
E.g. it isn't terribly impossible to release the same sort of 'rollups' we've
discussed before on the list. Start from a known good core package,
and roll in the known good module versions. If several modules are
fixed [or the core is fixed] for a set of bugs, and new good known tags
are available, then a set of common modules, or a complete set of
modules could be downloaded. Based on any of the common or
complete packages, one could then create binaries.
I don't know that module-by-module binary downloads make sense,
since they all have to be tagged, are specific to a given core release,
and possibly specific to given module releases as well [think of a DAV
provider, which needs to be in sync with the core and dav/main srcs].
Bill
Re: Removing modules
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 08:35:13PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > >In the past, people have suggested a CPAN/PEAR-approach where
> > >modules are downloaded when needed.
> >
> > Modules in source form or binary form?
>
> Source. Binaries are too troublesome. -- justin
Problem: Windows, HP/UX w/non-ANSI compiler, other platforms with
similar deficiencies..
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Removing modules
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 08:35:13PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> >In the past, people have suggested a CPAN/PEAR-approach where
> >modules are downloaded when needed.
>
> Modules in source form or binary form?
Source. Binaries are too troublesome. -- justin
Re: Removing modules
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> In the past, people have suggested a CPAN/PEAR-approach where
> modules are downloaded when needed.
Modules in source form or binary form?
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm
"There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: Removing modules
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> writes:
> I like the idea of decoupling the modules from the core, leaving
> only the ability to serve static files in the base distribution.
>
> That would allow us to make releases without as many constraints,
> freeing up the modules to release on their own schedule (which
> eventually leads to quicker releases).
I suspect that this would lead to serious frustration in the user
community if popular modules such as rewrite, include, even ssl now,
are released separately from the core. It is extra work for the users
to track more than one release.
Meanwhile, Apache can't be properly tested on apache.org without using
popular add-on modules, so we validate the core server in combination
with at least some of the add-on modules anyway.
So while a module with a fix might be able to be released sooner
(assuming that somebody wants to be RM), the core code probably
couldn't be. (We don't have that many showstoppers in modules.)
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Removing modules
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
>
> I'm in favor of putting new modules in their own projects,
> then when they are stable and generally complete, if they
> are still just a couple of files small, and have become
> reasonably popular/useful, I have no problem including them
> in the HTTPd project.
+1
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Removing modules
Posted by Wilfredo Sanchez <ws...@mit.edu>.
On Sunday, July 28, 2002, at 07:00 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> I like the idea of decoupling the modules from the core, leaving
> only the ability to serve static files in the base distribution.
I don't. It's a pain in the ass for the users if they have to download and build every single feature they want to use.
Let's see, I have this server that does nothing. Better download mod_http. I need includes. Grr... download mod_include. Grr, I need auth... Right now, you can uncomment a line in the config, and even better use/edit the <IfModule> switched config defaults for that module or uncomment an example. It's really easy to get started with mod_userdir today. Move it out, and it's not.
Perl has CPAN, but Perl also ships with a lot of base modules, so that it's useful to most people without CPAN.
I'm in favor of putting new modules in their own projects, then when they are stable and generally complete, if they are still just a couple of files small, and have become reasonably popular/useful, I have no problem including them in the HTTPd project.
It's nice to have a fair bit of useful (and used) functionality available out of the box.
> That would allow us to make releases without as many constraints,
> freeing up the modules to release on their own schedule (which
> eventually leads to quicker releases).
This is great for large modules like PHP. It's of negative value for modules that hardly ever change because they are small and don't really need much more work over time.
-wsv
Re: Removing modules
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
> In the past, people have suggested a CPAN/PEAR-approach where
> modules are downloaded when needed. This way we could reduce
> the stock distribution to the bare bones. We would also have
> to rethink our configuration policy (almost to make it like
> Perl does - interactive). -- justin
I like the idea of decoupling the modules from the core, leaving
only the ability to serve static files in the base distribution.
That would allow us to make releases without as many constraints,
freeing up the modules to release on their own schedule (which
eventually leads to quicker releases).
just my 2c,
-aaron