2.4 or 3.0 ? (Was: Re: [PROPOSAL] mod_cloudbeat)

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Mar 29, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Paul Querna wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM, ntwrkd <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can you explain why this would not be accomplishable through
>> mod_proxy_balancer and would merit it's own module?
>
> 1) it is not currently possibly to add proxy workers without a
> graceful restart, meaning you either need to script or have an admin
> do something every time you add a node in the cloud.
>

Currently, yes, but it's not something that could not be
somewhat easily added. The main reason for slotmem is
to provide for that... being able to organically grow and
shrink shared-mem is next.

> 2) I am tired of monolithic modules like mod_proxy -- mod_heartbeat,
> mod_heartmonitor are good examples, they do one thing, and provide
> that information to other modules to use, they aren't the 'entire
> stack' in one module -- which is what doing it directly in
> mod_proxy_balancer would do.  mod_proxy's internals also need serious
> rethought, any time you have structures with 50+ members, we did
> something wrong in the design.
>
>>

+1...

Question time: With the vast number of changes going on,
it appears that we are not so much stabilizing trunk as we
are adding stuff to it. This is OK, but it also means that
using trunk as a starting point for our next new version
is becoming more difficult, not less. Plus, since we seem
to be extending the time for that to happen, we are making
potential backports from trunk to httpd-2.2 more difficult
due to the refactorings as well. Does it make sense to branch
off 2.4 before we go further?

Personally, I like the mod_serf stuff very much, but am having
a tough time keeping track of the serious amount of work being
done, and so cannot provide any real useful feedback or patches
until I try to follow what's been going on and understand before
I make stupid mistakes....

Re: 2.4 or 3.0 ? (Was: Re: [PROPOSAL] mod_cloudbeat)

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> due to the refactorings as well. Does it make sense to branch
> off 2.4 before we go further?

Nah... 2.4?  3.0?  That seems like a value judgement once things
stabilize.

We can leave out 'not yet ready' modules.  We shouldn't leave out
the changes required to core; we needed them - why wouldn't other
dev author folks need them?