You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net> on 2007/11/14 15:07:16 UTC
Re: Amsterdam sandbox
Graham Leggett wrote:
> On Wed, November 14, 2007 10:35 am, Paul Querna wrote:
>
>
>> That you currently need a patch to serf/trunk to add the pluggable event
>> loop. Hopefully we can fix that out tomorrow by adding it or some
>> derivative to serf trunk.
>>
>
> This could potentially become a recurring theme.
>
> Adding the ability for httpd modules to make http client calls is a very
> useful addition, and as has been suggested already, mod_serf is the most
> obvious contender for the job for extending services to the rest of the
> server.
>
> But if what httpd asks of serf deviates so far from the standard serf
> library that we need to fork our own version of serf, then we will start
> having all sorts of problems.
>
> We need to keep this in mind if serf is set to be so tightly integrated
> with the core.
>
>
Well, not to overstate the obvious, but aren't we implying here that
serf will become an integral part of apr-util (at least that's what I'd
understood)? As such, serf wouldn't be forked as much as absorbed...
Issac
Re: Amsterdam sandbox
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On Wed, November 14, 2007 4:07 pm, Issac Goldstand wrote:
> Well, not to overstate the obvious, but aren't we implying here that
> serf will become an integral part of apr-util (at least that's what I'd
> understood)? As such, serf wouldn't be forked as much as absorbed...
Serf is a separate project under the Google Code umbrella. While the
project members are very much aligned with httpd, there is no reason why
serf shouldn't remain the standalone library it is now.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Amsterdam sandbox
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On Wed, November 14, 2007 4:07 pm, Issac Goldstand wrote:
> Well, not to overstate the obvious, but aren't we implying here that
> serf will become an integral part of apr-util (at least that's what I'd
> understood)? As such, serf wouldn't be forked as much as absorbed...
Serf is a separate project under the Google Code umbrella. While the
project members are very much aligned with httpd, there is no reason why
serf shouldn't remain the standalone library it is now.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Amsterdam sandbox
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Nov 14, 2007 9:16 AM, Davi Arnaut <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> Under (or not) the Apache umbrella?
As Greg and I have stated, we know that the long-term home for Serf is
in Apache. However, we're slowly building a viable community to be
built around Serf that could withstand any single person's departure.
We've been making progress, but we're not there yet. When that is
achieved, then we'll go through the Incubation process. FWIW, we've
requested that all Serf committers have a CLA on file and that they
know that Serf will one day return home to Apache. This should put it
on a fast-track within the Incubator. =) -- justin
Re: Amsterdam sandbox
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Nov 14, 2007 9:16 AM, Davi Arnaut <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> Under (or not) the Apache umbrella?
As Greg and I have stated, we know that the long-term home for Serf is
in Apache. However, we're slowly building a viable community to be
built around Serf that could withstand any single person's departure.
We've been making progress, but we're not there yet. When that is
achieved, then we'll go through the Incubation process. FWIW, we've
requested that all Serf committers have a CLA on file and that they
know that Serf will one day return home to Apache. This should put it
on a fast-track within the Incubator. =) -- justin
Re: Amsterdam sandbox
Posted by Davi Arnaut <da...@apache.org>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 9:07 AM, Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net> wrote:
>> Well, not to overstate the obvious, but aren't we implying here that
>> serf will become an integral part of apr-util (at least that's what I'd
>> understood)? As such, serf wouldn't be forked as much as absorbed...
>
> IMO, serf is and should be a standalone library. -- justin
Under (or not) the Apache umbrella?
--
Davi Arnaut
Re: Amsterdam sandbox
Posted by Davi Arnaut <da...@apache.org>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 9:07 AM, Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net> wrote:
>> Well, not to overstate the obvious, but aren't we implying here that
>> serf will become an integral part of apr-util (at least that's what I'd
>> understood)? As such, serf wouldn't be forked as much as absorbed...
>
> IMO, serf is and should be a standalone library. -- justin
Under (or not) the Apache umbrella?
--
Davi Arnaut
Re: Amsterdam sandbox
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Nov 14, 2007 9:07 AM, Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net> wrote:
> Well, not to overstate the obvious, but aren't we implying here that
> serf will become an integral part of apr-util (at least that's what I'd
> understood)? As such, serf wouldn't be forked as much as absorbed...
IMO, serf is and should be a standalone library. -- justin
Re: Amsterdam sandbox
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Nov 14, 2007 9:07 AM, Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net> wrote:
> Well, not to overstate the obvious, but aren't we implying here that
> serf will become an integral part of apr-util (at least that's what I'd
> understood)? As such, serf wouldn't be forked as much as absorbed...
IMO, serf is and should be a standalone library. -- justin