Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

[Brad Nicholes <BN...@novell.com>]

 >>> On 4/3/2008 at 8:23 AM, in message
<99...@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>,
Plüm,
Rüdiger, VF-Group <ru...@vodafone.com> wrote:

> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Jim Jagielski 
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 16:07
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org 
>> Betreff: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was 
>> Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])
>> 
>> Another good topic of discussion:
>> 
>> Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along
>> and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too
>> much ripping with the inevitable delays associated with that :)
>> 
> 
> I know that I am always devils advocate and a brakeman regarding
this,
> but we should keep in mind the following:
> 
> 1. After the rewrite of the authz code to a provider based model we
still 
> fail
>    the basic authz tests in the perl framework. This is a clear
showstopper
>    and needs to be fixed first. Yes, I also should have a had a more
closer
>    look on what Brad (no blame game intended against anyone as I
failed to 
> do
>    proper review back then) did there in the past to highlight issues

> earlier,
>    but my gut feeling tells me that there are still some surprises in
this 
> code
>    regarding bugs and the configuration syntax.
> 

It wouldn't surprise me, which is why we need to get a 2.3-beta out
there for testing.  I've tried to make sure that the holes where filled
with the authz refactor, but it is likely that something will be missing
until more wide spread testing is done.  The perl framework problems
were discussed on the list a couple of months ago


http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200801.mbox/%3c7e79c5b90801040912h187004a6wea8d1b51cc1d46db@mail.gmail.com%3e
 

The current tests don't apply anymore because authz has moved from hook
based to provider based with logic operators added.  If we need to
rework something outside of the tests themselves, then that needs to be
identified.  As far as breaking existing authz modules, it is a similar
situation when authn moved from hooks to providers in 2.2.  All of the
standard Apache authz modules have already been refactored.  This issue
is third parties will have to refactor their authz modules for 2.4.

Brad

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

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

On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>>>>
> It wouldn't surprise me, which is why we need to get a 2.3-beta out
> there for testing.

That would be good as well... that way we can determine
how solid the existing impl is, so when the new stuff is
added we know the "old" stuff is still good :)