fcgi

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

Personally, I think it would be cool to fold the fcgi branch
into httpd-trunk. I have some cycles coming up and it would
be cool to get that puppy "official" for trunk and maybe
even 2.2

PS: Yeah, I know, I said I'd be offline, but this is something
    I broke my promise for :)
-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
    "There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else."

Re: fcgi

[Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>]

On 12/29/05, Brian McCallister <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>   On Dec 29, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
>
> > As for backport it to 2.2....  Right now, I believe this should be
> > one of the headliner features for a 2.4 release in 8-12 months.
> >
> > I am not a fan of backportitist.  I am not saying I would -1 things
> > if others want them... I just think we have been down that path
> > with 2.0.xx....
>
> Is it using (or going to be using) any features which are not
> available in 2.2 at the moment?

Guys, any discussion of a backport is very premature, we're still
discussing if we should merge to trunk, let's get over that bridge
before we even start thinking about 2.2.x.  There's a lot of code to
be written before anyone's gonna be wanting to use this stuff in
production anyway.

-garrett

Re: fcgi

[Brian McCallister <br...@apache.org>]

  On Dec 29, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Paul Querna wrote:

> I would prefer to keep it in a development branch for at least  
> until TCP support is good.
>
> Maybe the place to merge is before work is done on local/Process  
> management.  That would mean a minimal feature set to work with  
> remote FCGI processes.
>
> Right now, we have problems beyond the most basic hello world.  I  
> think this is jumping the gun just a little bit.
>
> As for backport it to 2.2....  Right now, I believe this should be  
> one of the headliner features for a 2.4 release in 8-12 months.
>
> I am not a fan of backportitist.  I am not saying I would -1 things  
> if others want them... I just think we have been down that path  
> with 2.0.xx....

Is it using (or going to be using) any features which are not  
available in 2.2 at the moment?

-Brian

Re: fcgi

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

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Personally, I think it would be cool to fold the fcgi branch
> into httpd-trunk. I have some cycles coming up and it would
> be cool to get that puppy "official" for trunk and maybe
> even 2.2

I would prefer to keep it in a development branch for at least until TCP 
support is good.

Maybe the place to merge is before work is done on local/Process 
management.  That would mean a minimal feature set to work with remote 
FCGI processes.

Right now, we have problems beyond the most basic hello world.  I think 
this is jumping the gun just a little bit.

As for backport it to 2.2....  Right now, I believe this should be one 
of the headliner features for a 2.4 release in 8-12 months.

I am not a fan of backportitist.  I am not saying I would -1 things if 
others want them... I just think we have been down that path with 2.0.xx....

-Paul

Re: fcgi

[Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>]

On 12/29/05, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Personally, I think it would be cool to fold the fcgi branch
> into httpd-trunk. I have some cycles coming up and it would
> be cool to get that puppy "official" for trunk and maybe
> even 2.2

No objection to merging it eventually, but I'd really prefer that we
at least get it to the point where it's really useful (as opposed to
just limping along) before doing so.  If you have spare cycles and
want to help with it please feel free to do so, there's no reason that
can't be done just as easily on the branch as it can on the trunk.

Perhaps getting a real TODO list put together would make it easier for
people to pitch in and help with it.

-garrett