You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com> on 2001/04/09 18:45:28 UTC
Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
like...
mod_speling
mod_cern_meta - Can get equivalent function in mod_headers (and much more
efficient)
Unless I hear strong objections (veto's) I will remove these two modules from
the Apache 2.0 tree at the end of the week.
Bill
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:45:28PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> like...
>
> mod_speling
-0
> mod_cern_meta - Can get equivalent function in mod_headers (and much more
> efficient)
+1
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Lars Eilebrecht <la...@hyperreal.org>.
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:45:28PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> mod_speling
> mod_cern_meta - Can get equivalent function in mod_headers (and much more
> efficient)
+1 on removing mod_cern_meta, but -0 on mod_speling.
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht - I'm out of my mind...
lars@hyperreal.org - but feel free to leave a message.
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > I actually noticed this a while ago, and decided that I wanted more
> > experience running a web site. For that reason, I have actually created
> > http://www.rkbloom.net/, and I am finally running my own server. :-)
>
> Oh, but it's not a true test server until you can see it under heavy
> request loads. You should add more pictures of Kelly. ;-)
Kelly is the one with the artistic bent. She likes to run the camera, but
I'll see what I can do. I think I did the heavy load thing today. I just
walked around our office, and most of the developers at Covalent "found"
my web site when I mentioned it on list. If Covalent is any indication, I
saw a load spike today. :-)
I guess I should start to put my Apache modules and presentations on that
site now.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
On Wednesday, April 11, 2001, at 07:15 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> I actually noticed this a while ago, and decided that I wanted more
>> experience running a web site. For that reason, I have actually
>> created
>> http://www.rkbloom.net/, and I am finally running my own server. :-)
>
> Oh, but it's not a true test server until you can see it under heavy
> request loads. You should add more pictures of Kelly. ;-)
>
>
Yes, and Ryan, you now need to answer all those "Drive More Traffic to
Your Site" spams, as a real webmaster. 8^)
Chuck
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>.
> I actually noticed this a while ago, and decided that I wanted more
> experience running a web site. For that reason, I have actually created
> http://www.rkbloom.net/, and I am finally running my own server. :-)
Oh, but it's not a true test server until you can see it under heavy
request loads. You should add more pictures of Kelly. ;-)
....Roy
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 03:06:50PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > The module would not go away. It will just live somewhere else. Let the folks
> > > who are interested in it maintain it. Given a bit of time, I am sure I could
> > > contrive dozens o silly modules that try to 'do what I mean not what I asked',
> > > which is this modules purpose in life.
> >
> > it sounds like it really fails the 'is actively maintained' test.
> > i think whether the module is useful or not is disputable, but
> > the lack of a maintainer doesn't appear to be. :)
> >
FWIW, I reported earlier that mod_speling was broken on Windows (just passing along what someone
told me). I just got around to playing with mod_speling (for the first time ever) and I'm happy to
report it works quite well on Windows. Tested it against latest Apache 1.3 and 2.0 HEAD and Apache
1.3.12. No problems.
Bill
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 03:06:50PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > The module would not go away. It will just live somewhere else. Let the folks
> > who are interested in it maintain it. Given a bit of time, I am sure I could
> > contrive dozens o silly modules that try to 'do what I mean not what I asked',
> > which is this modules purpose in life.
>
> it sounds like it really fails the 'is actively maintained' test.
> i think whether the module is useful or not is disputable, but
> the lack of a maintainer doesn't appear to be. :)
>
> i don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest with this, but something
> i realized recently is that the balance of people contributing to
> apache httpd development and maintenance has shifted over time from
> people who actively run websites to people who develop software. i
> think it has caused some interesting changes in what people consider
> important. (i'm not trying to pass any judgement on those changes,
> although just by bringing it up, i suspect i have.)
>
> jim
This is an excellent and totally accurate point IMO. I don't maintain websites so what I think of as
important may be way off base. Feel free to slap me into line :-) I also tend to have a bias toward
corporate user's (internal and B2B, etc.). I'll leave the module (mod_speling) in based on the
feedback I have heard.
Bill
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
Yeah, getting out of the office and out to a real site helps, especially
when the site's sucking eggs and needs fixing. 8^) That's how I usually
get a dose of that old religion/reality these days.
I think there are a few actual webmasters still on the list.
Ask? Graham?
The clueful pleas for help with httpd are good for ataying current.
On Thursday, April 12, 2001, at 04:54 AM, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
> Jim Winstead wrote:
> [snip]
>> i don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest with this, but something
>> i realized recently is that the balance of people contributing to
>> apache httpd development and maintenance has shifted over time from
>> people who actively run websites to people who develop software. i
>> think it has caused some interesting changes in what people consider
>> important. (i'm not trying to pass any judgement on those changes,
>> although just by bringing it up, i suspect i have.)
>
> I agree. Even though I have not much operational experience.
> Walking around in the network management area some time,
> certain things are done a certain way. It does not really matter
> why and how, but knowing the way people use it makes a
> real difference.
>
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Harrie Hazewinkel <ha...@covalent.net>.
Jim Winstead wrote:
[snip]
> i don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest with this, but something
> i realized recently is that the balance of people contributing to
> apache httpd development and maintenance has shifted over time from
> people who actively run websites to people who develop software. i
> think it has caused some interesting changes in what people consider
> important. (i'm not trying to pass any judgement on those changes,
> although just by bringing it up, i suspect i have.)
I agree. Even though I have not much operational experience.
Walking around in the network management area some time,
certain things are done a certain way. It does not really matter
why and how, but knowing the way people use it makes a
real difference.
Harrie
--
phone: +39-3474932300
http://www.lisanza.net/
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Ben Laurie wrote:
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > > > i realized recently is that the balance of people contributing to
> > > > apache httpd development and maintenance has shifted over time from
> > > > people who actively run websites to people who develop software. i
> > > > think it has caused some interesting changes in what people consider
> > > > important. (i'm not trying to pass any judgement on those changes,
> > > > although just by bringing it up, i suspect i have.)
> > >
> > > I actually noticed this a while ago, and decided that I wanted more
> > > experience running a web site. For that reason, I have actually created
> > > http://www.rkbloom.net/, and I am finally running my own server. :-)
> >
> > Oh, that is a FreeBSD machine running 2.0, with the threaded MPM, but it
> > is an older version of 2.0, because I haven't had the cycles to upgrade
> > recently.
>
> Which version of FreeBSD do threads not behave weirdly one?
I think they behave wierdly on all of them. But, the site is hit so
infrequently (especially now that it's down [DSL problems :-(] ) that I
don't notice the threading bugs.
Ryan
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > > i realized recently is that the balance of people contributing to
> > > apache httpd development and maintenance has shifted over time from
> > > people who actively run websites to people who develop software. i
> > > think it has caused some interesting changes in what people consider
> > > important. (i'm not trying to pass any judgement on those changes,
> > > although just by bringing it up, i suspect i have.)
> >
> > I actually noticed this a while ago, and decided that I wanted more
> > experience running a web site. For that reason, I have actually created
> > http://www.rkbloom.net/, and I am finally running my own server. :-)
>
> Oh, that is a FreeBSD machine running 2.0, with the threaded MPM, but it
> is an older version of 2.0, because I haven't had the cycles to upgrade
> recently.
Which version of FreeBSD do threads not behave weirdly one?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > i realized recently is that the balance of people contributing to
> > apache httpd development and maintenance has shifted over time from
> > people who actively run websites to people who develop software. i
> > think it has caused some interesting changes in what people consider
> > important. (i'm not trying to pass any judgement on those changes,
> > although just by bringing it up, i suspect i have.)
>
> I actually noticed this a while ago, and decided that I wanted more
> experience running a web site. For that reason, I have actually created
> http://www.rkbloom.net/, and I am finally running my own server. :-)
Oh, that is a FreeBSD machine running 2.0, with the threaded MPM, but it
is an older version of 2.0, because I haven't had the cycles to upgrade
recently.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Jim Winstead wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 03:06:50PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > The module would not go away. It will just live somewhere else. Let the folks
> > who are interested in it maintain it. Given a bit of time, I am sure I could
> > contrive dozens o silly modules that try to 'do what I mean not what I asked',
> > which is this modules purpose in life.
>
> it sounds like it really fails the 'is actively maintained' test.
> i think whether the module is useful or not is disputable, but
> the lack of a maintainer doesn't appear to be. :)
I don't think the module has lost its maintainer. I just don't think
there is much to do with it.
> i don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest with this, but something
> i realized recently is that the balance of people contributing to
> apache httpd development and maintenance has shifted over time from
> people who actively run websites to people who develop software. i
> think it has caused some interesting changes in what people consider
> important. (i'm not trying to pass any judgement on those changes,
> although just by bringing it up, i suspect i have.)
I actually noticed this a while ago, and decided that I wanted more
experience running a web site. For that reason, I have actually created
http://www.rkbloom.net/, and I am finally running my own server. :-)
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Jim Winstead <ji...@trainedmonkey.com>.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 03:06:50PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> The module would not go away. It will just live somewhere else. Let the folks
> who are interested in it maintain it. Given a bit of time, I am sure I could
> contrive dozens o silly modules that try to 'do what I mean not what I asked',
> which is this modules purpose in life.
it sounds like it really fails the 'is actively maintained' test.
i think whether the module is useful or not is disputable, but
the lack of a maintainer doesn't appear to be. :)
i don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest with this, but something
i realized recently is that the balance of people contributing to
apache httpd development and maintenance has shifted over time from
people who actively run websites to people who develop software. i
think it has caused some interesting changes in what people consider
important. (i'm not trying to pass any judgement on those changes,
although just by bringing it up, i suspect i have.)
jim
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
>
> > It's not replaced. My personal opinion is that this is a silly module to
be
> > part of the core server distribution. It is currently broken on Windows
and
> > no one maintains it AFAIK. I would like to see it moved out of the core
server
> > and placed in modules.apache.org.
>
> So fix it on Win32. Actually, it should be _VERY_ easy once it is apr-ized.
>
> Let's look at what it does...
>
> 1. transpose upper/lower case typos
>
> * This is absolutely required as long as we encourage win32 users to
adopt
> unix systems, with all their case-broken links and the rest.
> * For this purpose, Win32 isn't even asking for this module.
This is nothing that your handy-dandy perl script can't fix. This just sounds
like a good excuse for sloppy web admin'ing to me.
>
> 2. fix up other ugly typos.
>
> * This is actually in the spirit of the rfc, "strict in the output,
leinent
> of the input."
Or saying it another way, "garbage-in, garbage-out".
> Remember that URI's are ment to be keyed from other media
> (magazines, newspapers, napkin notes, etc) and that means there is a
user
> in the way of success (EBCAD).
The module would not go away. It will just live somewhere else. Let the folks
who are interested in it maintain it. Given a bit of time, I am sure I could
contrive dozens o silly modules that try to 'do what I mean not what I asked',
which is this modules purpose in life.
Bill
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> OTOH, I'm +0 on removing mod_cern_meta (never found a use for it, myself.)
I had one case where I had a use for it under 1.3, where a 3rd-party
program used the .meta files. But if there's equivalent functionality in
another, more generalized module, then I'd say go ahead and remove
mod_cern_meta in 2.0... +1 from me.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:46 PM
> > > At 12:45 PM 04/09/2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > >
> > > >mod_speling
>
> Consider this a veto until further convincing arguments are presented.
OTOH, I'm +0 on removing mod_cern_meta (never found a use for it, myself.)
Just clarifing,
Bill
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > Unless the item requires majority approval rather than consensus approval?
> > http://dev.apache.org/guidelines.html is unclear about the distinction.
>
> My (limited) understanding is that our _code_ is always by consensus.
>
> Operating procedures, PMC actions etc are generally majority (or even super-majority)
> issues.
Fair enough.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "Cliff Woolley" <cl...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:20 PM
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Cliff, you just vetoed this change, if you like, change your vote to -.5 as Greg suggests.
>
> I did.
>
> > I'm with Greg on this, -1 is a veto, period,
>
> Unless the item requires majority approval rather than consensus approval?
> http://dev.apache.org/guidelines.html is unclear about the distinction.
My (limited) understanding is that our _code_ is always by consensus.
Operating procedures, PMC actions etc are generally majority (or even super-majority)
issues.
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> If convincing arguments are presented, I'll change my vote (and veto).
> Due to the confusion of late I figured I ought to spell it out.
>
> Cliff, you just vetoed this change, if you like, change your vote to -.5 as Greg suggests.
I did.
> I'm with Greg on this, -1 is a veto, period,
Unless the item requires majority approval rather than consensus approval?
http://dev.apache.org/guidelines.html is unclear about the distinction.
> until someone vetos that policy (or worse yet, votes -1 that a -1 is a
> not a veto, but not as a veto :-)
<scratching head> Whatever, dude. -0.5. =-)
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "Greg Stein" <gs...@lyra.org>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:09 PM
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 01:46:25PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >...
> > So I"m strongly -1 from removing this module under those two points. You could
> > probably add other arguments for keeping/removing the module, but I think these
> > two are the only relevant arguments for keeping it in the core.
> >
> > Consider this a veto until further convincing arguments are presented.
>
> -1 is always a veto when talking about the code.
>
> People who want to "vote" against something should use -0 if they don't like
> it. Additional comments or -0.5 or something can express how much they
> dislike it. But -1 should stick to being a veto so that we don't have to
> keep clarifying what the hell a -1 means.
>
> -1 is a veto. Use something else to express dislike.
Er... I ment what I said, or I said what I ment [a hacker is faithful, 100% :-?]
If convincing arguments are presented, I'll change my vote (and veto).
Due to the confusion of late I figured I ought to spell it out.
Cliff, you just vetoed this change, if you like, change your vote to -.5 as Greg suggests.
I'm with Greg on this, -1 is a veto, period, until someone vetos that policy
(or worse yet, votes -1 that a -1 is a not a veto, but not as a veto :-)
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Consider this a veto until further convincing arguments are presented.
>
> -1 is always a veto when talking about the code.
>
> People who want to "vote" against something should use -0 if they don't like
> it. Additional comments or -0.5 or something can express how much they
> dislike it. But -1 should stick to being a veto so that we don't have to
> keep clarifying what the hell a -1 means.
>
> -1 is a veto. Use something else to express dislike.
The definition is somewhat vague. The way I read the definition, it says
that +/-0 is essentially an obstention, ie -0 is "I don't like it,
but I don't care that much so do whatever you want." Anyway, I don't want
to start up this argument again, as it never gets us anywhere, so change
my vote on mod_speling to a -0.5 if that makes you happy. =-)
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 01:46:25PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>...
> So I"m strongly -1 from removing this module under those two points. You could
> probably add other arguments for keeping/removing the module, but I think these
> two are the only relevant arguments for keeping it in the core.
>
> Consider this a veto until further convincing arguments are presented.
-1 is always a veto when talking about the code.
People who want to "vote" against something should use -0 if they don't like
it. Additional comments or -0.5 or something can express how much they
dislike it. But -1 should stick to being a veto so that we don't have to
keep clarifying what the hell a -1 means.
-1 is a veto. Use something else to express dislike.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Let's look at what it does...
>
> 1. transpose upper/lower case typos
>
> * This is absolutely required as long as we encourage win32 users to adopt
> unix systems, with all their case-broken links and the rest.
> * For this purpose, Win32 isn't even asking for this module.
>
> 2. fix up other ugly typos.
>
> * This is actually in the spirit of the rfc, "strict in the output, leinent
> of the input." Remember that URI's are ment to be keyed from other media
> (magazines, newspapers, napkin notes, etc) and that means there is a user
> in the way of success (EBCAD).
>
> So I"m strongly -1 from removing this module under those two points. You could
> probably add other arguments for keeping/removing the module, but I think these
> two are the only relevant arguments for keeping it in the core.
>
> Consider this a veto until further convincing arguments are presented.
For the record, I'm also -1 (vote not veto) on removing mod_speling for
largely the same reasons.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>.
> Greg Marr asks...
> >
> > At 12:45 PM 04/09/2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >
> > >mod_speling
> >
> > What standard 2.0 module has replaced this functionality?
From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:14 PM
>
> It's not replaced. My personal opinion is that this is a silly module to be
> part of the core server distribution. It is currently broken on Windows and
> no one maintains it AFAIK. I would like to see it moved out of the core server
> and placed in modules.apache.org.
So fix it on Win32. Actually, it should be _VERY_ easy once it is apr-ized.
Let's look at what it does...
1. transpose upper/lower case typos
* This is absolutely required as long as we encourage win32 users to adopt
unix systems, with all their case-broken links and the rest.
* For this purpose, Win32 isn't even asking for this module.
2. fix up other ugly typos.
* This is actually in the spirit of the rfc, "strict in the output, leinent
of the input." Remember that URI's are ment to be keyed from other media
(magazines, newspapers, napkin notes, etc) and that means there is a user
in the way of success (EBCAD).
So I"m strongly -1 from removing this module under those two points. You could
probably add other arguments for keeping/removing the module, but I think these
two are the only relevant arguments for keeping it in the core.
Consider this a veto until further convincing arguments are presented.
Bill
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Jim Winstead <ji...@trainedmonkey.com>.
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 11:01:20AM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> > It's not replaced. My personal opinion is that this is a silly module to be
> > part of the core server distribution. It is currently broken on Windows and
> > no one maintains it AFAIK. I would like to see it moved out of the core server
> > and placed in modules.apache.org.
>
> Mod_speling was created by Alexei and Martin in 1997. It has been a part
> of the distribution since then. It looks like the last time a major
> change was made in in the 1.3 tree was Feb 16, 2000. I don't know if that
> is because there is no work to do, or if it is because nobody is
> maintaining it.
there is a patch i submitted (for 1.3 and 2.0) that added a directive
to turn off the alternatives support.
> What concerns me, is that there are constantly people asking for URLs to
> be case-insensitive. This module allows for that ability.
we used this module at homepage.com (a free webspace hosting thing,
now gone), because an average user just doesn't care about things
like case-sensitivity.
i think it is a useful little module. it would be nice if nobody
ever made a typo or a broken link, but i think it is nice when a
computer can compensate for the reality of us fallible humans.
jim
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> It's not replaced. My personal opinion is that this is a silly module to be
> part of the core server distribution. It is currently broken on Windows and
> no one maintains it AFAIK. I would like to see it moved out of the core server
> and placed in modules.apache.org.
Mod_speling was created by Alexei and Martin in 1997. It has been a part
of the distribution since then. It looks like the last time a major
change was made in in the 1.3 tree was Feb 16, 2000. I don't know if that
is because there is no work to do, or if it is because nobody is
maintaining it.
What concerns me, is that there are constantly people asking for URLs to
be case-insensitive. This module allows for that ability.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
It's not replaced. My personal opinion is that this is a silly module to be
part of the core server distribution. It is currently broken on Windows and
no one maintains it AFAIK. I would like to see it moved out of the core server
and placed in modules.apache.org.
Bill
> At 12:45 PM 04/09/2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >mod_speling
>
> What standard 2.0 module has replaced this functionality?
>
> --
> Greg Marr
> gregm@alum.wpi.edu
> "We thought you were dead."
> "I was, but I'm better now." - Sheridan, "The Summoning"
>
Re: Let's remove some modules from Apache 2.0
Posted by Greg Marr <gr...@alum.wpi.edu>.
At 12:45 PM 04/09/2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>mod_speling
What standard 2.0 module has replaced this functionality?
--
Greg Marr
gregm@alum.wpi.edu
"We thought you were dead."
"I was, but I'm better now." - Sheridan, "The Summoning"