You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be> on 2002/09/03 13:15:43 UTC
Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Hello,
I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core distribution.
It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution, what if an
other container implements the protocol ? Moreover, the mod_jk is of no
use to other webservers than apache and with the increased use of
servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
Anyhow, let me know what you think !
Peter.
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by Henning Brauer <hb...@bsws.de>.
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:15:43PM +0200, Peter Van Biesen wrote:
> servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
I beg to differ.
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be>.
Mladen Turk wrote:
> There is no need to take that personal. You should post that question to
> the tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org first. No one is pushing you out, and
> all your ideas and thoughts will be highly appreciated.
OK
>
> Second, if you are asking for a vote then IMO there should be some sort
> of discussion prior to that?
I don't remember a discussion prior to the vote of putting mod_auth_ldap
into the core, but I can be mistaken ... Anyway, shouldn't I have a
discussion prior to a vote on tomcat-dev then too ? No discussion, no
vote, no vote, no discussion ?
Let's leave it at no vote, no vote ;-)
>
> Read the:
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Especially the "dealing with rudeness" part ... ;-)
>
> MT.
Peter.
RE: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@mappingsoft.com>.
> From Peter Van Biesen
> Anyway, I gathered that apache was a organization that
> promoted public initiative. Apparently, it is not
> appreciated. I hope your attitude will get you far in your
> carreer ( probably a management position, I'm sure ... ).
>
There is no need to take that personal. You should post that question to
the tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org first. No one is pushing you out, and
all your ideas and thoughts will be highly appreciated.
Second, if you are asking for a vote then IMO there should be some sort
of discussion prior to that?
Read the:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
MT.
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be>.
Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> > I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core
> > distribution.
>
> The jk is not in the TC distribution, but rather in the
> jakarta-tomcat-connectors.
My mistake.
> > It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution,
>
> That's your opinion, and you should first ask the question to the right
> dev group.
Both groups are involved, the httpd AND the tomcat group. I was just
asking, no pressure ... ( calm down, please 8-| )
>
> > what if an other container implements the protocol ?
>
> Yes, what if?
Then they should always come to tomcat to get an interface to ajp ...
d'oh. Proving that it actually belongs in the httpd distribution.
>
> > most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
>
> How did you get to this statement? By experiment?
Did we get out of bed with the wrong foot ? Coffee cold ? Yes, by
experiment, I'm not in a position to do an exhaustive search, you know
...
>
> MT.
Anyway, I gathered that apache was a organization that promoted public
initiative. Apparently, it is not appreciated. I hope your attitude will
get you far in your carreer ( probably a management position, I'm sure
... ).
The vote has ended.
Peter.
RE: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@mappingsoft.com>.
> I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core
> distribution.
The jk is not in the TC distribution, but rather in the
jakarta-tomcat-connectors.
> It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution,
That's your opinion, and you should first ask the question to the right
dev group.
> what if an other container implements the protocol ?
Yes, what if?
> most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
How did you get to this statement? By experiment?
MT.
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by "Jess M. Holle" <je...@ptc.com>.
alex@foogod.com wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:51:20AM -0500, Jess M. Holle wrote:
>
>
>>It would be nicest of all to have builds of each version of the core for
>>each platform -- and pluggable binaries of all the extra modules for
>>each version/platform as well.
>>
>Eergh.. this sounds like a maintenance nightmare.
>
Why?
If the builds are automated, then there's no maintenance in producing
new binaries. If the builds don't work, then the releases should not be
done.
>>This could be cranked out by automated
>>scripts as a release criteria/requirement, i.e. it's not a release until
>>everything builds on all platforms with the automated scripts (and
>>ideally passes some basic tests on all of them too).
>>
>
>I can almost guarantee you this will translate to "we will never again have a
>release."
>
>There are still several significant official apache distribution modules from
>1.3 which do not yet work under the current 2.0 line.
>
I was not referring to modules from 1.3 that don't work with 2.0.
Rather I was talking about modules which ostensibly work against 1.3.x
or 2.0.x respectively.
>Considering that we're
>talking about creating a repository which presumably will be containing not
>only all of this stuff but lots of third-party modules with various levels of
>maintenance and stability, requiring that they all compile and work before
>releasing a new version of httpd is, frankly, insane.
>
Actually, you raise a good point. Third party modules should be
referenced by hyperlink and the party involved should be e-mailed to
notify them when a new build label is produced, but the Apache group
cannot take responsibility for 3rd-party modules. They can, however,
provide:
1. Something like http://modules.apache.org/, but with links direct
to download directories wherever possible.
2. Minimalistic coordination with such 3rd-parties to allow/encourage
them to rebuild with each Apache build.
Note that I am assuming a DSO-based distribution.
>Personally, what I would like to see is something along the following lines:
>
>1. A core Apache distribution containing a minimal server. This would contain
>the core code and the few modules required to get the basic HTTPD behavior
>everybody expects from any server (serve files off a disk, run CGIs, and not
>much else). This would be useful for those wanting a "lean and mean" httpd
>server, or for those who want to build everything custom from the module
>repository. It would also make it easy to release core updates in a timely
>fashion, as new releases of this package could be made with a minimum of
>modules needing to be updated/tested.
>
>2. An "enhanced" Apache distribution, containing everything from the minimal
>distribution, plus a bunch of really commonly used modules. This would be
>equivalent to what generally gets distributed now. Criteria for what modules
>get bundled into this should be based primarily on demand (only modules that
>lots of people out in the real world need and use), and of course there would
>be a requirement that any included modules must have people willing and able to
>actively develop and debug them in a timely fashion, so that if something
>breaks, it doesn't seriously slow down the release schedule (without good
>reason). It would be nice if releases of this package corresponded roughly to
>releases of the core package, but if a core change was made which required
>updating a lot of stuff, the core package could be released first, while work
>is still going on on updating all the other modules in this package to work
>with the new core before the enhanced package goes out the door.
>
>3. A repository of all apache modules (including all the ones from the
>enhanced distribution, and from everybody else out there in the world) in a
>consistent, well-defined form with a modular build system for the core which
>you can just drop them into. Ideally, I would like to be able to download one
>of the above two distributions, unpack the source, cd into the source
>directory, and then unpack mod_foo.tar.gz and mod_bar.tar.gz (obtained from the
>repository), run configure/make, and get a server which includes the foo and
>bar modules just as if they'd been part of the initial distribution. With a
>well-defined module distribution file format and a build system which
>automagically supported modular-inclusions, this shouldn't be too hard to
>achieve.
>
I agree up until the point where you say configure/make. I have little
trouble with this at this point personally, but after you watch the
uninitiated do this for a while -- especially given some esoteric
misconfiguration in their build support software (e.g. gcc) you come to
appreciate *binary* distributions.
--
Jess Holle
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by al...@foogod.com.
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:51:20AM -0500, Jess M. Holle wrote:
> It would be nicest of all to have builds of each version of the core for
> each platform -- and pluggable binaries of all the extra modules for
> each version/platform as well.
Eergh.. this sounds like a maintenance nightmare.
> This could be cranked out by automated
> scripts as a release criteria/requirement, i.e. it's not a release until
> everything builds on all platforms with the automated scripts (and
> ideally passes some basic tests on all of them too).
I can almost guarantee you this will translate to "we will never again have a
release."
There are still several significant official apache distribution modules from
1.3 which do not yet work under the current 2.0 line. Considering that we're
talking about creating a repository which presumably will be containing not
only all of this stuff but lots of third-party modules with various levels of
maintenance and stability, requiring that they all compile and work before
releasing a new version of httpd is, frankly, insane.
Personally, what I would like to see is something along the following lines:
1. A core Apache distribution containing a minimal server. This would contain
the core code and the few modules required to get the basic HTTPD behavior
everybody expects from any server (serve files off a disk, run CGIs, and not
much else). This would be useful for those wanting a "lean and mean" httpd
server, or for those who want to build everything custom from the module
repository. It would also make it easy to release core updates in a timely
fashion, as new releases of this package could be made with a minimum of
modules needing to be updated/tested.
2. An "enhanced" Apache distribution, containing everything from the minimal
distribution, plus a bunch of really commonly used modules. This would be
equivalent to what generally gets distributed now. Criteria for what modules
get bundled into this should be based primarily on demand (only modules that
lots of people out in the real world need and use), and of course there would
be a requirement that any included modules must have people willing and able to
actively develop and debug them in a timely fashion, so that if something
breaks, it doesn't seriously slow down the release schedule (without good
reason). It would be nice if releases of this package corresponded roughly to
releases of the core package, but if a core change was made which required
updating a lot of stuff, the core package could be released first, while work
is still going on on updating all the other modules in this package to work
with the new core before the enhanced package goes out the door.
3. A repository of all apache modules (including all the ones from the
enhanced distribution, and from everybody else out there in the world) in a
consistent, well-defined form with a modular build system for the core which
you can just drop them into. Ideally, I would like to be able to download one
of the above two distributions, unpack the source, cd into the source
directory, and then unpack mod_foo.tar.gz and mod_bar.tar.gz (obtained from the
repository), run configure/make, and get a server which includes the foo and
bar modules just as if they'd been part of the initial distribution. With a
well-defined module distribution file format and a build system which
automagically supported modular-inclusions, this shouldn't be too hard to
achieve.
I don't think it's worth trying to do a global binary module repository
(officially). Those responsible for building binary distributions for any
given platform can obtain and build in all the modules from the repository
which make sense and are well enough maintained to be feasable. Obviously, it
would be good to compile things in such a way that third-party developers could
also distribute their own binary modules, but I think any
repositories/collections for that sort of thing would best be done on an
as-needed, per-platform basis.
-alex
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by "Jess M. Holle" <je...@ptc.com>.
It would be nicest of all to have builds of each version of the core for
each platform -- and pluggable binaries of all the extra modules for
each version/platform as well. This could be cranked out by automated
scripts as a release criteria/requirement, i.e. it's not a release until
everything builds on all platforms with the automated scripts (and
ideally passes some basic tests on all of them too).
That way folk could piece together just what they want without having to
be Apache build gurus.
--
Jess Holle
Peter Van Biesen wrote:
>Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
>all clear what should get in. Indeed, a repository would be a better
>idea, with an apache distribution with no modules ( or only the core
>ones ).
>
>Peter.
>
>Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
>
>>Aye ! Well said.
>>
>>Dw.
>>
>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, John K. Sterling wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Here we go.....
>>>
>>>kitchen sink come on - we let a module into experimental (auth_ldap) and
>>>suddenly experimental will become the CPAN of apache.
>>>
>>>I think this is a silly idea personally. More cruft to maintain and to
>>>hold back releases, etc. etc. etc. Until Aaron's (et. al) idea of a module
>>>registry/repository becomes reality, jk should stay where it is.
>>>
>>>sterling
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-- Original Message --
>>>>Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>>Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:15:43 +0200
>>>>From: Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be>
>>>>To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>>Subject: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
>>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core distribution.
>>>>It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution, what if an
>>>>other container implements the protocol ? Moreover, the mod_jk is of no
>>>>use to other webservers than apache and with the increased use of
>>>>servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Anyhow, let me know what you think !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Peter Van Biesen wrote:
> how do you see this ? A core server with a bunch of .so's or hooks in
> the build process to statically link optional modules ?
Check out FreeBSD ports; basically a set of simple make files like:
ls /usr/ports/wwww/mod_*
mod_access_identd mod_backhand mod_fastcgi mod_mysqluserdir mod_sed
mod_access_referer mod_bf mod_frontpage mod_pcgi2 mod_sequester
mod_auth_any mod_blowchunks mod_gzip mod_perl mod_snake
mod_auth_external mod_cgi_debug mod_hosts_access mod_php3 mod_sqlinclude
mod_auth_kerb mod_color mod_index_rss mod_php4 mod_throttle
mod_auth_mysql mod_csacek mod_jk mod_proxy_add_forward mod_ticket
mod_auth_mysql_another mod_cvs mod_layout mod_put mod_trigger
mod_auth_pam mod_dav mod_log_mysql mod_python mod_tsunami
mod_auth_pgsql mod_dtcl mod_mp3 mod_roaming mod_watch
mod_auth_pwcheck mod_extract_forwarded mod_mylo mod_ruby mod_zap
And each then has a makefile:
# New ports collection makefile for: mod_mp3
# Date created: 7 April 2001
# Whom: will
#
# $FreeBSD: ports/www/mod_mp3/Makefile,v 1.17 2002/03/18 01:34:24 anders Exp $
#
PORTNAME= mod_mp3
PORTVERSION= 0.35
CATEGORIES= www audio
MASTER_SITES= http://software.tangent.org/download/ \
ftp://ftp.tangent.org/pub/apache/ \
http://atreides.freenix.no/~anders/
MAINTAINER= ports@FreeBSD.org
BUILD_DEPENDS= ${APXS}:${PORTSDIR}/www/apache13
RUN_DEPENDS= ${APXS}:${PORTSDIR}/www/apache13
HAS_CONFIGURE= yes
MAKE_ARGS+= APXS="${APXS}"
APXS?= ${LOCALBASE}/sbin/apxs
DOCS= ChangeLog README TODO faq.html
do-install:
${APXS} -i -A -n mp3 ${WRKSRC}/src/mod_mp3.so
.if !defined(NOPORTDOCS)
@${INSTALL} -d -m 0755 ${PREFIX}/share/doc/mod_mp3
.for f in ${DOCS}
${INSTALL_DATA} ${WRKSRC}/${f} ${PREFIX}/share/doc/mod_mp3/
.endfor
.endif
${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE}
.include <bsd.port.mk>
all you do is cd into the directory and do a make, make install.
If you look at 'fink' you see a more cross-platform sort of approach. Both
work well.
Dw
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be>.
Hi,
how do you see this ? A core server with a bunch of .so's or hooks in
the build process to statically link optional modules ?
Peter.
"John K. Sterling" wrote:
>
> >-- Original Message --
> >Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:24:01 +0200
> >From: Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be>
> >To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
> >
> >
> >Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
> >all clear what should get in. Indeed, a repository would be a better
> >idea, with an apache distribution with no modules ( or only the core
> >ones ).
> >
>
> As I stated, many people expressed interest in this a few weeks ago. I
> would really LOVE to see some folks get together (i'll volunteer to help
> out, but a member should lead the charge) and come up with an architecture
> for this - there are many obvious systems we could copy. As a module author,
> it would be nice to have tighter integration with the core, without having
> to become a part of the core :)
>
> sterling
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by "John K. Sterling" <jo...@sterls.com>.
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:24:01 +0200
>From: Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be>
>To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
>
>
>Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
>all clear what should get in. Indeed, a repository would be a better
>idea, with an apache distribution with no modules ( or only the core
>ones ).
>
As I stated, many people expressed interest in this a few weeks ago. I
would really LOVE to see some folks get together (i'll volunteer to help
out, but a member should lead the charge) and come up with an architecture
for this - there are many obvious systems we could copy. As a module author,
it would be nice to have tighter integration with the core, without having
to become a part of the core :)
sterling
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be>.
Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
all clear what should get in. Indeed, a repository would be a better
idea, with an apache distribution with no modules ( or only the core
ones ).
Peter.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> Aye ! Well said.
>
> Dw.
>
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, John K. Sterling wrote:
>
> > Here we go.....
> >
> > kitchen sink come on - we let a module into experimental (auth_ldap) and
> > suddenly experimental will become the CPAN of apache.
> >
> > I think this is a silly idea personally. More cruft to maintain and to
> > hold back releases, etc. etc. etc. Until Aaron's (et. al) idea of a module
> > registry/repository becomes reality, jk should stay where it is.
> >
> > sterling
> >
> > >-- Original Message --
> > >Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > >Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:15:43 +0200
> > >From: Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be>
> > >To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > >Subject: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
> > >
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core distribution.
> > >It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution, what if an
> > >other container implements the protocol ? Moreover, the mod_jk is of no
> > >use to other webservers than apache and with the increased use of
> > >servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
> > >
> > >Anyhow, let me know what you think !
> >
> >
> >
> >
RE: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
Aye ! Well said.
Dw.
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, John K. Sterling wrote:
> Here we go.....
>
> kitchen sink come on - we let a module into experimental (auth_ldap) and
> suddenly experimental will become the CPAN of apache.
>
> I think this is a silly idea personally. More cruft to maintain and to
> hold back releases, etc. etc. etc. Until Aaron's (et. al) idea of a module
> registry/repository becomes reality, jk should stay where it is.
>
> sterling
>
> >-- Original Message --
> >Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:15:43 +0200
> >From: Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be>
> >To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >Subject: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core distribution.
> >It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution, what if an
> >other container implements the protocol ? Moreover, the mod_jk is of no
> >use to other webservers than apache and with the increased use of
> >servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
> >
> >Anyhow, let me know what you think !
>
>
>
>
RE: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Posted by "John K. Sterling" <jo...@sterls.com>.
Here we go.....
kitchen sink come on - we let a module into experimental (auth_ldap) and
suddenly experimental will become the CPAN of apache.
I think this is a silly idea personally. More cruft to maintain and to
hold back releases, etc. etc. etc. Until Aaron's (et. al) idea of a module
registry/repository becomes reality, jk should stay where it is.
sterling
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:15:43 +0200
>From: Peter Van Biesen <pe...@vlafo.be>
>To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>Subject: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
>
>Hello,
>
>I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core distribution.
>It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution, what if an
>other container implements the protocol ? Moreover, the mod_jk is of no
>use to other webservers than apache and with the increased use of
>servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
>
>Anyhow, let me know what you think !