You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by rb...@covalent.net on 2000/10/09 17:41:35 UTC
Plan for 2.0b1
Okay, we have just released the 7th alpha, and I would like to see a
beta release finally. Here are the issues I see as pressing before we can
go beta, please add to the list if you see something I missed. I would
really like to see this beta happen at ApacheCon Europe.
The list:
Remove Buff from the server completely
Fix mod_include
Cleanup some memory leaks
Search for and fix all the XXX's in the code
That's it on my list of things to do before beta. I am not volunteering
to do them all, just trying to get a list out there.
This also ties in to the proxy and caching modules code. Those two
modules are horribly broken right now. I am subscribed to the mod_proxy
list, and it is dead. I think there have been two messages on it
total. The caching modules stuff is still using BUFF, and it should be
re-written to be a filter, because that is really the only way it makes a
great deal of sense. It seems to me, that we used to only allow modules
in the core distribution if there was somebody in the group to take
responsability for them. Well, those modules seem to have snuck in
because we were in pre-alpha mode. Is anybody keeping those modules up to
date? If not, should we remove them? If so, what is their status?
Those are all questions, there are no value judgements about those
modules, I am trying to move us toward a beta, and that requires that we
know where all parts of the code are.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Plan for 2.0b1
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@bellsouth.net>.
rbb@covalent.net writes:
> Okay, we have just released the 7th alpha, and I would like to see a
> beta release finally. Here are the issues I see as pressing before we can
> go beta, please add to the list if you see something I missed. I would
> really like to see this beta happen at ApacheCon Europe.
>
> The list:
> Remove Buff from the server completely
> Fix mod_include
> Cleanup some memory leaks
> Search for and fix all the XXX's in the code
>
> That's it on my list of things to do before beta. I am not volunteering
> to do them all, just trying to get a list out there.
A big issue is performance tuning... (In fact, "tuning" may not be a
strong-enough word, as some obvious throw-away implementations have
cropped up during the filter enhancements.) A lot of that should be
done before the beta cycle starts. Our beta testers would generally
expect increasing robustness throughout the beta cycle. If we wait
until the beta cycle to try to achieve decent performance we'll break
this expectation. If we break this expectation we lose beta testers.
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@ibm.net | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Plan for 2.0b1
Posted by "Victor J. Orlikowski" <v....@gte.net>.
I am working on the implementation of a caching filter, though I am
only just now coming up to speed with working on filters and am in the
middle of understanding the caching api. I will be focusing on that
shortly.
I believe that Chuck was the one working on mod_proxy....
Victor
--
Victor J. Orlikowski
======================
v.j.orlikowski@gte.net
vjo@raleigh.ibm.com
vjo@us.ibm.com
Re: Plan for 2.0b1
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> This also ties in to the proxy and caching modules code. Those two
> modules are horribly broken right now. I am subscribed to the mod_proxy
> list, and it is dead. I think there have been two messages on it
> total. The caching modules stuff is still using BUFF, and it should be
> re-written to be a filter, because that is really the only way it makes a
> great deal of sense.
The mod_proxy in the v2.0 tree was forked at a point when the mod_proxy
in the v1.3 tree was broken. So far sufficient changes have been made to
the mod_proxy in v2.0 to make porting the fixes a real problem, and as
the caching has been removed from the module I don't believe that adding
HTTP/1.1 support will be easy, even if possible.
I have put together a design for a general caching module for Apache
that would use filters. Never having used filters before I figured a
design would be a better idea rather than code - at least people that
know much more than me can tell me if the idea is crap or not. This
caching using filters design would then let caching work properly in
mod_proxy, which would then reduce down to a very simple network access
module.
I'll just go over the design again quickly and post it here...
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Plan for 2.0b1
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Paul J. Reder wrote:
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > The list:
> > Remove Buff from the server completely
> > Fix mod_include
> > Cleanup some memory leaks
> > Search for and fix all the XXX's in the code
>
> Ryan,
>
> Unless you are really burning to work on mod_include, I am looking at it
> and would like to try to tackle this. If you have any input, please let me
> know. Otherwise, I will work on it and you are free to focus on other
> bigger issues.
Be my guest. I want to remove BUFF from the entire server. This lets me
do that. Cool!!!!!
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Plan for 2.0b1
Posted by "Paul J. Reder" <re...@raleigh.ibm.com>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> The list:
> Remove Buff from the server completely
> Fix mod_include
> Cleanup some memory leaks
> Search for and fix all the XXX's in the code
Ryan,
Unless you are really burning to work on mod_include, I am looking at it
and would like to try to tackle this. If you have any input, please let me
know. Otherwise, I will work on it and you are free to focus on other
bigger issues.
--
Paul J. Reder
-----------------------------------------------------------
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each
citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do
his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
-- Albert Einstein
Re: Plan for 2.0b1
Posted by Bill Stoddard <st...@raleigh.ibm.com>.
IMO, there is no way we can get this code ready for beta by ApacheCon, unless
we are willing to change our definition of 'what is beta ready code'.
I suggested releasing a beta right after alpha-5 (before the filtering work
happened) and you dissed the idea because the code could not run everything
required by www.apache.org. The alpha-5 code was MUCH more stable that what
we are likely to have by the end of October (or the end of this year for that
matter). Furthermore, my impression is that the Apache user community will
expect our 'beta' level code to be near general release level quality. We
are not even close to that yet.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: <rb...@covalent.net>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 11:41 AM
Subject: Plan for 2.0b1
>
> Okay, we have just released the 7th alpha, and I would like to see a
> beta release finally. Here are the issues I see as pressing before we can
> go beta, please add to the list if you see something I missed. I would
> really like to see this beta happen at ApacheCon Europe.
>
> The list:
> Remove Buff from the server completely
> Fix mod_include
> Cleanup some memory leaks
> Search for and fix all the XXX's in the code
>
> That's it on my list of things to do before beta. I am not volunteering
> to do them all, just trying to get a list out there.
>
> This also ties in to the proxy and caching modules code. Those two
> modules are horribly broken right now. I am subscribed to the mod_proxy
> list, and it is dead. I think there have been two messages on it
> total. The caching modules stuff is still using BUFF, and it should be
> re-written to be a filter, because that is really the only way it makes a
> great deal of sense. It seems to me, that we used to only allow modules
> in the core distribution if there was somebody in the group to take
> responsability for them. Well, those modules seem to have snuck in
> because we were in pre-alpha mode. Is anybody keeping those modules up to
> date? If not, should we remove them? If so, what is their status?
>
> Those are all questions, there are no value judgements about those
> modules, I am trying to move us toward a beta, and that requires that we
> know where all parts of the code are.
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
_
> Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
RE: Plan for 2.0b1
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > The caching modules stuff is still using BUFF, and it should be
> > re-written to be a filter, because that is really the only
> > way it makes a great deal of sense.
>
> which caching modules stuff are we talking about here? mod_file_cache
> is brand new, and most definately has been supported by FirstBill, so
> you must be talking about something that doesn't click with me.
if you look at modules/file_cache, that is the caching stuff I am looking
at. Notice, this is completely different from mod_file_cache that is in
modules/standard. The file_cache directory was added by somebody doing
proxy work.
> > It seems to me, that we used to only allow modules in the core
> > distribution if there was somebody in the group to take
> > responsability for them. Well, those modules seem to have snuck in
> > because we were in pre-alpha mode. Is anybody keeping those
> > modules up to date? If not, should we remove them? If so, what is
> > their status?
>
> Move anything you might want gone to src/modules/unsupported
> after which they can find their way back home with a maintainer.
That is an option. I would like to hear from other people though, so I am
not doing anything for at least a few days.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Plan for 2.0b1
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 10:42 AM
>
> Okay, we have just released the 7th alpha, and I would like to see a
> beta release finally. Here are the issues I see as pressing
> before we can
> go beta, please add to the list if you see something I
> missed. I would
> really like to see this beta happen at ApacheCon Europe.
>
> The list:
> Remove Buff from the server completely
> Fix mod_include
> Cleanup some memory leaks
> Search for and fix all the XXX's in the code
>
> That's it on my list of things to do before beta. I am not
> volunteering to do them all, just trying to get a list out there.
Well... I myself have to get mod_dav/mod_dav_fs built on Win32, the
full blown <Directory /> parsing and win32 case sensitivity/no shortnames
patch in, and add wchar support hidden within Win32/APR. Most everything
else is working fairly well.
But I'm not happy rolling a Beta until the big bugs pass an Alpha. If we
roll an Alpha next Sunday, and it flies, then I'm not against rolling the
beta on a 10/20-10/22.
> This also ties in to the proxy and caching modules code. Those two
> modules are horribly broken right now. I am subscribed to
> the mod_proxy list, and it is dead.
I agree mod_proxy is unsupported... the win32 fixes committed to 1.3.13
were identified over a year ago. I'm +1 for removing it in this condition
from beta 1, and only when we are prepared to release beta 1.
Or do the other thing... rename modules/proxy to modules/unsupported.
> The caching modules stuff is still using BUFF, and it should be
> re-written to be a filter, because that is really the only
> way it makes a great deal of sense.
which caching modules stuff are we talking about here? mod_file_cache
is brand new, and most definately has been supported by FirstBill, so
you must be talking about something that doesn't click with me.
> It seems to me, that we used to only allow modules in the core
> distribution if there was somebody in the group to take
> responsability for them. Well, those modules seem to have snuck in
> because we were in pre-alpha mode. Is anybody keeping those
> modules up to date? If not, should we remove them? If so, what is
> their status?
Move anything you might want gone to src/modules/unsupported
after which they can find their way back home with a maintainer.