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 2013/12/29 16:16:11 UTC
OT (Was: Re: Ceph patches for httpd)
It is for reasons like this that I tend to dislike Github,
simply because it creates this mentality...
What mentality you may say? The mentality to work separate
from the community. I am sure that there are useful things
in this repo, but instead of working w/ us, and making
us aware of them, they instead just spin out something
separate. Why?
IMO, this tendency to "do your own thing" is one reason
why BSD failed while Linux succeeded... The result is
a *more* fragmented community, not a more cohesive and
collaborative one.
On Dec 27, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> There are two patches that the Ceph community has applied to their httpd packages in combination with radosgw (S3 endpoint) - (see https://github.com/ceph/apache2).
>
> One of them is to allow Content-Length of '0' to be emitted from HEAD requests:
>
> https://github.com/ceph/apache2/commit/0d9948f1e483386adef0841896484db8422127b2
>
> The use case here is that someone could store a zero-byte file inside of radosgw. Amazon's S3 clients expect to see a Content-Length on HEAD requests - IOW, they don't infer the lack of a Content-Length as being '0'. If we weren't comfortable allowing this as a default, I'm guessing that we could expose this as a directive override.
>
> The other patch is to relax some of the checks around Expect headers as not all S3 clients emit compliant headers:
>
> https://github.com/ceph/apache2/commit/5ae1b4a081b05fcacf55e7114eec87d9b2a0a5da
>
> Again, I guess that we could apply a directive here to relax the check.
>
> If we go the directive route, both are relatively easy to whip up patches for, but I wanted to get some feedback before I commit anything to trunk.
>
> Cheers. -- justin
Re: OT (Was: Re: Ceph patches for httpd)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Agreed. Thx for seeing those patches and proposing them
being added!
On Dec 29, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> This is why I am trying to fold the patches back in. There is a definite difference between open source and a real community. =) -- justin
>
> On Dec 29, 2013 10:17 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> It is for reasons like this that I tend to dislike Github,
> simply because it creates this mentality...
>
> What mentality you may say? The mentality to work separate
> from the community. I am sure that there are useful things
> in this repo, but instead of working w/ us, and making
> us aware of them, they instead just spin out something
> separate. Why?
>
> IMO, this tendency to "do your own thing" is one reason
> why BSD failed while Linux succeeded... The result is
> a *more* fragmented community, not a more cohesive and
> collaborative one.
>
> On Dec 27, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > There are two patches that the Ceph community has applied to their httpd packages in combination with radosgw (S3 endpoint) - (see https://github.com/ceph/apache2).
> >
> > One of them is to allow Content-Length of '0' to be emitted from HEAD requests:
> >
> > https://github.com/ceph/apache2/commit/0d9948f1e483386adef0841896484db8422127b2
> >
> > The use case here is that someone could store a zero-byte file inside of radosgw. Amazon's S3 clients expect to see a Content-Length on HEAD requests - IOW, they don't infer the lack of a Content-Length as being '0'. If we weren't comfortable allowing this as a default, I'm guessing that we could expose this as a directive override.
> >
> > The other patch is to relax some of the checks around Expect headers as not all S3 clients emit compliant headers:
> >
> > https://github.com/ceph/apache2/commit/5ae1b4a081b05fcacf55e7114eec87d9b2a0a5da
> >
> > Again, I guess that we could apply a directive here to relax the check.
> >
> > If we go the directive route, both are relatively easy to whip up patches for, but I wanted to get some feedback before I commit anything to trunk.
> >
> > Cheers. -- justin
>
Re: OT (Was: Re: Ceph patches for httpd)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
This is why I am trying to fold the patches back in. There is a definite
difference between open source and a real community. =) -- justin
On Dec 29, 2013 10:17 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> It is for reasons like this that I tend to dislike Github,
> simply because it creates this mentality...
>
> What mentality you may say? The mentality to work separate
> from the community. I am sure that there are useful things
> in this repo, but instead of working w/ us, and making
> us aware of them, they instead just spin out something
> separate. Why?
>
> IMO, this tendency to "do your own thing" is one reason
> why BSD failed while Linux succeeded... The result is
> a *more* fragmented community, not a more cohesive and
> collaborative one.
>
> On Dec 27, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > There are two patches that the Ceph community has applied to their httpd
> packages in combination with radosgw (S3 endpoint) - (see
> https://github.com/ceph/apache2).
> >
> > One of them is to allow Content-Length of '0' to be emitted from HEAD
> requests:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/ceph/apache2/commit/0d9948f1e483386adef0841896484db8422127b2
> >
> > The use case here is that someone could store a zero-byte file inside of
> radosgw. Amazon's S3 clients expect to see a Content-Length on HEAD
> requests - IOW, they don't infer the lack of a Content-Length as being '0'.
> If we weren't comfortable allowing this as a default, I'm guessing that we
> could expose this as a directive override.
> >
> > The other patch is to relax some of the checks around Expect headers as
> not all S3 clients emit compliant headers:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/ceph/apache2/commit/5ae1b4a081b05fcacf55e7114eec87d9b2a0a5da
> >
> > Again, I guess that we could apply a directive here to relax the check.
> >
> > If we go the directive route, both are relatively easy to whip up
> patches for, but I wanted to get some feedback before I commit anything to
> trunk.
> >
> > Cheers. -- justin
>
>