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 2011/09/15 15:01:20 UTC
Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)…
The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding
doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the
question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best
way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy
trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn
mojo? etc…?
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>.
Reminder: In bugzilla are reported issues (with patches) with mod_fcgid,
should be nice when these are solved.
Acept filter issue means in common that 2.4.0 cannot be used on Windows.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Fritsch" <sf...@sfritsch.de>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Thursday 15 September 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)…
> >
> > The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
> > documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding
> > doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the
> > question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best
> > way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy
> > trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn
> > mojo? etc…?
I think the windows accept filter issue is a real blocker. The only
alternative would be to release 2.4.0 without official support for
Windows.
> The bundling of fcgid shouldn't be a blocker IMO. Much to my
> disappointment I haven't had time to work on it lately, and I see
> that no one else has either.
+1, mod_fcgid can be added in 2.4.1+
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
> I think the windows accept filter issue is a real blocker. The only
> alternative would be to release 2.4.0 without official support for
> Windows.
I took a look at this in the AM, and it looks like the acceptfilter
none path is relying on data set only by AcceptEX (context->buffer) to
fill in context->sa_server (child.c:590). In 2.2 the context->buffer
is seeded by the 9x specific code.
Seems like that block of code just needs a backport from
win9x_get_connection to set the server side of this structure
correctly before it's copied into "sockinfo" later in the same
function.
I can't easily build it and not sure what other non-acceptex 9x-isms
are in win9x_get_connection.
This matches the reports of the base VH being picked every time, but I
couldn't find on the list where the culprit had been identified
before.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Thursday 15 September 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)…
> >
> > The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
> > documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding
> > doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the
> > question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best
> > way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy
> > trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn
> > mojo? etc…?
I think the windows accept filter issue is a real blocker. The only
alternative would be to release 2.4.0 without official support for
Windows.
> The bundling of fcgid shouldn't be a blocker IMO. Much to my
> disappointment I haven't had time to work on it lately, and I see
> that no one else has either.
+1, mod_fcgid can be added in 2.4.1+
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I agree that it shouldn't be a blocker… I agree it would
Be Nice if it was bundled… Let me look at fcgid and
see what the current status is.
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)…
>>
>> The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
>> documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding
>> doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the
>> question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best
>> way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy
>> trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn
>> mojo? etc…?
>
> The bundling of fcgid shouldn't be a blocker IMO. Much to my
> disappointment I haven't had time to work on it lately, and I see that
> no one else has either. There's little time remaining in 2.4
> development and no apparent tuits to make effective use of the
> bundling by moving towards a more 2.4-centric/exploitive
> implementation, and at the same time bundling means one more test
> scenario for getting fixes out to users of fcgid with 2.2.x.
>
> For users, bundling saves one download and one tar/unzip. It builds
> within the httpd tree currently if desired.
>
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)…
>
> The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
> documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding
> doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the
> question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best
> way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy
> trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn
> mojo? etc…?
The bundling of fcgid shouldn't be a blocker IMO. Much to my
disappointment I haven't had time to work on it lately, and I see that
no one else has either. There's little time remaining in 2.4
development and no apparent tuits to make effective use of the
bundling by moving towards a more 2.4-centric/exploitive
implementation, and at the same time bundling means one more test
scenario for getting fixes out to users of fcgid with 2.2.x.
For users, bundling saves one download and one tar/unzip. It builds
within the httpd tree currently if desired.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Keith Mashinter <km...@yahoo.com>.
Thanks, I'll try it out.
\|/- Keith Mashinter <km...@yahoo.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:36:51
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Keith Mashinter wrote:
> Just a reminder about this, providing a way to phase out a server
> by only accepting existing sessions/routed requests.
>
> |51247|New|Enh|2011-05-23|Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker
> status
>
>
Jim did add this feature as indicated in that bug report. The patch
provides for a 'drain' setting which should do the trick.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Keith Mashinter <km...@yahoo.com>.
I've done a backport patch of the mod_proxy_balancer PROXY_WORKER_DRAIN for the 2.2.x stream in the hopes it could be included in a future 2.2.x release.
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247
\|/- Keith Mashinter
kmashint@yahoo.com
________________________________
From: Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:36:51 AM
Subject: Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Keith Mashinter wrote:
> Just a reminder about this, providing a way to phase out a server
> by only accepting existing sessions/routed requests.
>
> |51247|New|Enh|2011-05-23|Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker
> status
>
>
Jim did add this feature as indicated in that bug report. The patch
provides for a 'drain' setting which should do the trick.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Keith Mashinter wrote:
> Just a reminder about this, providing a way to phase out a server
> by only accepting existing sessions/routed requests.
>
> |51247|New|Enh|2011-05-23|Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker
> status
>
>
Jim did add this feature as indicated in that bug report. The patch
provides for a 'drain' setting which should do the trick.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Keith Mashinter <km...@yahoo.com>.
Just a reminder about this, providing a way to phase out a server by only accepting existing sessions/routed requests.
|51247|New|Enh|2011-05-23|Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker status
I've reviewed the other patch https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841 and I had a similar idea, wondering if the route-only intent would happen if I tried to set lbfactor=0 but it only allowed values 1-100 and I worried about the complexity of changing the lbmethod formulae so using a separate status code seemed cleaner. It's a bit of a magic value, but an intuitive one I think. On the user surface lbfactor=0 requires less change than my ROUTE_ONLY to the configuration and balancer-manager but it needs some documentation to clarify the intent.
I also attached a patch to https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247 for the trunk, but since I'm having trouble with the overall compile it's "in theory". Please forgive compile issues, but I wanted to at least share the thought and will update when I can verify a compile and test run.
In the end, either solution can work, and my hope is that multiple attempts at the same goal make a stronger case to bring the functionality to the 2.2.x stream for people to enjoy sooner rather than later.
\|/- Keith Mashinter
kmashint@yahoo.com
From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:00:44 AM
Subject: Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
>> - mpm_simple
>
> mpm_simple likely to get dropped for 2.4, see our main STATUS file
>
I hope to spent some time diving into mod_simple… I have some
uncommitted patches that I need to re-look at.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
>> - mpm_simple
>
> mpm_simple likely to get dropped for 2.4, see our main STATUS file
>
I hope to spent some time diving into mod_simple… I have some
uncommitted patches that I need to re-look at.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 19.09.2011 01:37, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> - mod_socache_dbm
>>>> - mod_socache_memcache
>>>> - mod_socache_shmcb
>>>
>>> Not sure about socache, but docs are definitely needed, because you need
>>> socache for mod_ssl session cache (which we also need to mention int the
>>> mod_ssl docs).
>>
>> These modules are implementations of an abstraction, and probably
>> don't want standard module pages. Like mod_proxy_foo backends.
>
> Excellent. I wondered if they were in that category. The list was produced from a simple grep. I'll remove those from my list, and see if I can find any that I missed, or which are new since I made the original list.
I think we need to add to the mod_ssl docs, that if you want an ssl
session cache (and yes, you want one although most modern clients
support reusing the session without caching session data on the server
side - it's a TLS extension OpenSSL/mod_ssl supports), you need to
activate mod_socache_xxx where xxx depends on the SSLSessionCache you
configure (maybe we need a table or similar). There is a short remark on
the socache page, that it is used by other modules, but a user would
expect a remark in the pages of the other mdules, that you need to
activate the correct socache module.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Sep 18, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>>>
>>> - mod_socache_dbm
>>> - mod_socache_memcache
>>> - mod_socache_shmcb
>>
>> Not sure about socache, but docs are definitely needed, because you need
>> socache for mod_ssl session cache (which we also need to mention int the
>> mod_ssl docs).
>
> These modules are implementations of an abstraction, and probably
> don't want standard module pages. Like mod_proxy_foo backends.
Excellent. I wondered if they were in that category. The list was produced from a simple grep. I'll remove those from my list, and see if I can find any that I missed, or which are new since I made the original list.
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
rbowen@apache.org
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:52:34 +0200
Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
> > - mod_socache_dbm
> > - mod_socache_memcache
> > - mod_socache_shmcb
>
> Not sure about socache, but docs are definitely needed, because you need
> socache for mod_ssl session cache (which we also need to mention int the
> mod_ssl docs).
These modules are implementations of an abstraction, and probably
don't want standard module pages. Like mod_proxy_foo backends.
Maybe this can serve as a startingpoint for socache docs:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.3/socache.html
(I had an idea I'd written some socache docs when I wrote
mod_authn_socache, but I suspect it was no more than the above).
--
Nick Kew
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
>> - mod_heartbeat
>> - mod_heartmonitor
>
> Those two were mainly provided by Jean-Frederic (AFAIR).
I think these were Pauls…
>> - mod_lbmethod_heartbeat
>
As was this.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 19.09.2011 00:17, Rich Bowen wrote:
> My current list is:
>
> - mod_serf
mod_serf likely to get dropped for 2.4, see our main STATUS file
> - mod_watchdog
Mainly written by Mladen, so maybe he can provide a few pointers
> - mod_heartbeat
> - mod_heartmonitor
Those two were mainly provided by Jean-Frederic (AFAIR).
> - mod_lbmethod_bybusyness
> - mod_lbmethod_byrequests
> - mod_lbmethod_bytraffic
> - mod_lbmethod_heartbeat
Several people (including me) should be easily able to contribute to
those docs.
> - mod_socache_dbm
> - mod_socache_memcache
> - mod_socache_shmcb
Not sure about socache, but docs are definitely needed, because you need
socache for mod_ssl session cache (which we also need to mention int the
mod_ssl docs).
> - mpm_simple
mpm_simple likely to get dropped for 2.4, see our main STATUS file
> However, I will readily admit that I haven't had much time to work on docs the last month or two, so some of these many have been documented since then, and there may be others that I'm missing.
>
> There's also mod_lua, which has many directives documented with "...", and I suspect that there are other modules in this same state.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>> - mod_lbmethod_bybusyness
>> - mod_lbmethod_byrequests
>> - mod_lbmethod_bytraffic
>
> Do we really need full doccos for these "sub" modules?
> No matter what, these would be easy to do since mod_proxy
> and mod_proxy_balancer pretty much describe them anyway ;)
Someone's created enough of a doc to say what the module is after someone spots it in httpd -M and wants to know what it is. I'll update them to not promise more. That is, they currently say "This document is still under development", but I think what's there is probably sufficient for the purpose.
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
rbowen@apache.org
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> - mod_lbmethod_bybusyness
> - mod_lbmethod_byrequests
> - mod_lbmethod_bytraffic
Do we really need full doccos for these "sub" modules?
No matter what, these would be easy to do since mod_proxy
and mod_proxy_balancer pretty much describe them anyway ;)
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Sep 18, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Sep 17, 2011, at 10:02 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)…
>>>
>>> The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
>>> documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one.
>>
>> Could you enumerate what you feel is lacking in the documentation? I know of several modules that are effectively undocumented, and a few more that have minimal, but insufficient documentation. I'd like to hear your take on this. As always, I'm willing to whatever I can on the editing, formatting, etc, side of things, but the raw info needs to come from somewhere. Please let me know where I can be of assistance.
>>
>
> Just the possible fact that some modules may not have doccos…
> Not sure if that is even the case (yet), but if there are mod's
> w/o docs, then we can't in good conscience ship the mods.
>
My current list is:
- mod_serf
- mod_watchdog
- mod_heartbeat
- mod_heartmonitor
- mod_lbmethod_bybusyness
- mod_lbmethod_byrequests
- mod_lbmethod_bytraffic
- mod_lbmethod_heartbeat
- mod_socache_dbm
- mod_socache_memcache
- mod_socache_shmcb
- mpm_simple
However, I will readily admit that I haven't had much time to work on docs the last month or two, so some of these many have been documented since then, and there may be others that I'm missing.
There's also mod_lua, which has many directives documented with "...", and I suspect that there are other modules in this same state.
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
rbowen@apache.org
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 17, 2011, at 10:02 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)…
>>
>> The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
>> documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one.
>
> Could you enumerate what you feel is lacking in the documentation? I know of several modules that are effectively undocumented, and a few more that have minimal, but insufficient documentation. I'd like to hear your take on this. As always, I'm willing to whatever I can on the editing, formatting, etc, side of things, but the raw info needs to come from somewhere. Please let me know where I can be of assistance.
>
Just the possible fact that some modules may not have doccos…
Not sure if that is even the case (yet), but if there are mod's
w/o docs, then we can't in good conscience ship the mods.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)…
>
> The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
> documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one.
Could you enumerate what you feel is lacking in the documentation? I know of several modules that are effectively undocumented, and a few more that have minimal, but insufficient documentation. I'd like to hear your take on this. As always, I'm willing to whatever I can on the editing, formatting, etc, side of things, but the raw info needs to come from somewhere. Please let me know where I can be of assistance.
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
rbowen@apache.org
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 9/15/2011 8:37 AM, Mario Brandt wrote:
>
>> The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
>> documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one.
>
> What is about the Windows AcceptFilter issues?[1]
With the security issues resolved, I'll look at this after a short
holiday for recuperation.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Posted by Mario Brandt <jb...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
> The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
> documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one.
What is about the Windows AcceptFilter issues?[1]
Greetz
Mario
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1155061