RFC: rename mod_cache to mod_http_cache

[Brian Akins <br...@turner.com>]

Not wanting to stir the huge pot o' stuff that is going on here, but 
what are the thoughts of renaming mod_cache to mod_http_cache? 
mod_cache is http specific.  This would follow the general ide that 
mod_proxy uses.

I am not suggesting changing any functionality at this time, simply 
renaming it to a more suitable name.

-- 
Brian Akins
Lead Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies

Re: RFC: rename mod_cache to mod_http_cache

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

On 5/3/06, Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com> wrote:
> I am okay with forcing people to wait for 2.4.  Develop in trunk and/or
> devel-branches freely.  Don't worry about back porting it to the stable
> branch, IMO.

+1.  -- justin

Re: RFC: rename mod_cache to mod_http_cache

[Brian Akins <br...@turner.com>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Not in 2.2 branch, but in trunk?  The issue is that it's half httpd, and
> half generic.  Let me mull this over.

can we separate out the http specific parts without violating Graham's 
concerns?  My whole original idea was to just do that... I was not fully 
aware of the issues in the current mod_cache.



-- 
Brian Akins
Lead Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies

Re: RFC: rename mod_cache to mod_http_cache

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Brian Akins wrote:
> Not wanting to stir the huge pot o' stuff that is going on here, but 
> what are the thoughts of renaming mod_cache to mod_http_cache? mod_cache 
> is http specific.  This would follow the general ide that mod_proxy uses.
> 
> I am not suggesting changing any functionality at this time, simply 
> renaming it to a more suitable name.

Not in 2.2 branch, but in trunk?  The issue is that it's half httpd, and
half generic.  Let me mull this over.

If we layer it, I can entirely agree that there should be a mod_http_cache
that's entirely concerned with the content negotation handshake of http.
But in all other respects, mod_cache is equally useful for other protocols
such as mod_ftp (it takes advantage of it now, only with one possible
variant because ftp doesn't speak in variants.)

Bill

Re: RFC: rename mod_cache to mod_http_cache

[Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>]

Graham Leggett wrote:
> Brian Akins wrote:
> 
>> Not wanting to stir the huge pot o' stuff that is going on here, but
>> what are the thoughts of renaming mod_cache to mod_http_cache?
>> mod_cache is http specific.  This would follow the general ide that
>> mod_proxy uses.
> 
> This is a good idea, but thinking about this for a bit, doing so would
> be impossible to backport to v2.2 (it would break existing configs).
> This in turn would make it more difficult for fixes that would be useful
> in v2.2 to be backported, forcing people to wait until v2.4 before
> seeing the advantages.

I am okay with forcing people to wait for 2.4.  Develop in trunk and/or
devel-branches freely.  Don't worry about back porting it to the stable
branch, IMO.

-Paul

Re: RFC: rename mod_cache to mod_http_cache

[Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>]

Brian Akins wrote:

> Not wanting to stir the huge pot o' stuff that is going on here, but 
> what are the thoughts of renaming mod_cache to mod_http_cache? mod_cache 
> is http specific.  This would follow the general ide that mod_proxy uses.

This is a good idea, but thinking about this for a bit, doing so would 
be impossible to backport to v2.2 (it would break existing configs). 
This in turn would make it more difficult for fixes that would be useful 
in v2.2 to be backported, forcing people to wait until v2.4 before 
seeing the advantages.

I agree that a rename should definitely happen though, but I'd say not yet.

Regards,
Graham
--