You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2013/06/12 15:42:37 UTC
looking for luv
2 backport proposals looking 4 3vote-luv
* mod_proxy_wstunnel: Backport (copy) websocket tunnel proxy submodule
* skiplist: Add skiplist functionality
Re: looking for luv
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> My question is not whether that feature is useful, rather whether this
> belongs in httpd, or is a better candidate for apr?
Either is fine, I guess. However, my plan is that the
eventopt stuff will eventually get backported to 2.4
and that requires skiplist and so we'll have an apr
dependency.... I don't think APR needs to be all-inclusive
and so adding stuff to httpd is OK (after all, APR started
off as a portability layer, not a "collection of all
useful things" :) )
> A consolidated
> patch of a 14-commit patchlist would be much easier to review :)
>
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/skiplist.c?view=markup
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/include/ap_skiplist.h?view=markup
How ez is that :)
Re: looking for luv
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:55:15 -0400
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:08:00PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 June 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > 2 backport proposals looking 4 3vote-luv
> >
> > > * skiplist: Add skiplist functionality
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be any user of the skiplist than
> > register_timed_callback, and there doesn't seem to be any user of
> > register_timed_callback besides mod_dialup.c. Is mod_dialup really
> > that important? And is the inefficiency there a big problem? Maybe
> > we could wait until there are more users of the API?
>
> They are useful.
My question is not whether that feature is useful, rather whether this
belongs in httpd, or is a better candidate for apr? A consolidated
patch of a 14-commit patchlist would be much easier to review :)
My question on mod_proxy_wstunnel is whether it can be considered
stable, or is (and should be documented as) experimental, in which
case I'd ask if $proxy_mods_enable is really the right default, or
whether the user should enable it explicity?
Re: looking for luv
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:08:00PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 June 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 2 backport proposals looking 4 3vote-luv
>
> > * skiplist: Add skiplist functionality
>
> There doesn't seem to be any user of the skiplist than
> register_timed_callback, and there doesn't seem to be any user of
> register_timed_callback besides mod_dialup.c. Is mod_dialup really
> that important? And is the inefficiency there a big problem? Maybe we
> could wait until there are more users of the API?
They are useful.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams
Re: looking for luv
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I will be removing this backport request, but I'd ask sf to
> actually address his concerns by actually working on the code
> instead of just blocking it for whatever reason.
That's not what I intended. I did not vote -1. The comments were meant
to indicate what would need to happen (possibly modulo some
discussions) for me to vote +1. But I won't fix the issues myself, I
have things with higher priority on my to do list than bringing the
skiplist to 2.4 right now.
I am not against the changes, though. I am just reluctant to bring new
APIs to 2.4 if they have not seen much testing.
Cheers,
Stefan
RE: looking for luv
Posted by Plüm,
Rüdiger,
Vodafone Group <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> From: Jeff Trawick
> Sent: Dienstag, 18. Juni 2013 15:32
> To: Apache HTTP Server Development List
> Subject: Re: looking for luv
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I will be removing this backport request, but I'd ask sf to
> actually address his concerns by actually working on the code
> instead of just blocking it for whatever reason.
>
> Wow! Stefan raised a number of issues in STATUS which are spot-on considerations when someone wants to merge a feature* from trunk to > a stable branch. It is great that he took the time to dig through it and comment on it, and it is hard to see your comments here as > > even remotely pertinent to his concerns.
I agree. The original committer of the code should feel obliged to reply to those concerns and fix them after discussing
the concerns if they turn out to be technically valid. It's not the duty of someone who raises concerns to fix stuff,
he can if he likes, but it's not his duty.
And raising a veto on a backport with valid technical reasons is IMHO no 'just blocking it for whatever reason'.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: looking for luv
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 18, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I will be removing this backport request, but I'd ask sf to
> actually address his concerns by actually working on the code
> instead of just blocking it for whatever reason.
>
> Wow! Stefan raised a number of issues in STATUS which are spot-on considerations when someone wants to merge a feature* from trunk to a stable branch. It is great that he took the time to dig through it and comment on it, and it is hard to see your comments here as even remotely pertinent to his concerns.
>
I instead saw it as simple justifications for him
to block it. It's obvious that he doesn't see the
need for it and so instead of seeing the potential
and working on making it more useful to address
needs that he sees, he simply noted concerns.
Yes, the documentation stuff makes sense.
It's the sense of working with existing stuff to
try to make it better or the viewpoint that "I don't
like it so forget it."
Re: looking for luv
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I will be removing this backport request, but I'd ask sf to
> actually address his concerns by actually working on the code
> instead of just blocking it for whatever reason.
>
Wow! Stefan raised a number of issues in STATUS which are spot-on
considerations when someone wants to merge a feature* from trunk to a
stable branch. It is great that he took the time to dig through it and
comment on it, and it is hard to see your comments here as even remotely
pertinent to his concerns.
*the API? the MPM? I'm confused
>
> On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:40 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jun 13, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am interested in reviewing it, but have some other work to finish
> first.
> >>
> >
> > Thx.
> >
> > BTW, a reminder that it's based on Theo's code from
> > mod_log_spread et.al.
> >
>
>
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: looking for luv
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I will be removing this backport request, but I'd ask sf to
actually address his concerns by actually working on the code
instead of just blocking it for whatever reason.
On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:40 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> wrote:
>>
>> I am interested in reviewing it, but have some other work to finish first.
>>
>
> Thx.
>
> BTW, a reminder that it's based on Theo's code from
> mod_log_spread et.al.
>
Re: looking for luv
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 13, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> wrote:
>
> I am interested in reviewing it, but have some other work to finish first.
>
Thx.
BTW, a reminder that it's based on Theo's code from
mod_log_spread et.al.
Re: looking for luv
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 12 Jun 2013, at 20:08, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be any user of the skiplist than
> register_timed_callback, and there doesn't seem to be any user of
> register_timed_callback besides mod_dialup.c. Is mod_dialup really
> that important? And is the inefficiency there a big problem? Maybe we
> could wait until there are more users of the API?
APIs that don't exist don't attract users.
From the perspective of ordinary people, the most recent code is httpd v2.4, and that is the latest code that actually exists in the minds of people doing development.
I am interested in reviewing it, but have some other work to finish first.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: looking for luv
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Wednesday 12 June 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 2 backport proposals looking 4 3vote-luv
> * skiplist: Add skiplist functionality
There doesn't seem to be any user of the skiplist than
register_timed_callback, and there doesn't seem to be any user of
register_timed_callback besides mod_dialup.c. Is mod_dialup really
that important? And is the inefficiency there a big problem? Maybe we
could wait until there are more users of the API?