Re: [AJP] proxy status

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

At 02:15 PM 8/7/2004, Costin wrote:
>Now let's see how to get this in Apache2.0...

Gonna try to make that happen, if I can somehow merge history (ick)

>It would be great if we would have at least one or 2 people who are committers in both projects. Since we can't propose Mladen in apache, maybe we can convince Graham to join tomcat :-)

Can't propose mturk?  Why, because he is already active in httpd space?

I actually am thinking that generation 2 of mod_aspdotnet will support
the ajp connector for out-of-process ASP.NET content ;-)  I would like to
see ajp discussion back on httpd, or failing that, should we resurrect 
proxy-dev@httpd for lower bandwidth discussion by both groups?

Bill  

Re: [AJP] proxy status

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 09:35:53AM +0200, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>...
> The idea when starting the ajp-proxy was to get it in httpd HEAD.
> The first developpement were done in j-t-c (jakarta-tomcat-connectors) only 
> because Henri, Mladen and I don't have commit in httpd and we wanted 
> something running for testing very quicky.
> 
> Now the code is at its right place and we (as Jakarta committers) have to 
> submit patches. (That is what we had done to get the commit rights in 
> Jakarta).

Compared to somebody new to the ASF, committers from other Apache projects
should have a lower bar to reaching commit access. ASF Members should have
an even lower bar than that.

This is based on the assumption that the committer has already shown they
are somewhat clueful by virtue of their commit rights. That said, the bar
is set at different levels among the projects which is why commit access
isn't a pure given, but it should definitely be lower. Members have an
even lower bar because the assumption is that their prolonged dedication
has presumably implied they aren't idiots. Also, to some extent, a Member
is responsible for ALL code at the ASF, so it makes some sense for them to
be able to fix things wherever they might be borken.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: [AJP] proxy status

[jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com>]

Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> That seems rational to me.  The reason for proposing proxy-dev@httpd is so
>> that tomcat-dev'ers wouldn't have to swallow the full bandwidth of 
>> dev@httpd (converse of the problem where they asked anyone in dev@httpd to
>> follow tomcat-dev@jakarta for the duration of that proxy_ajp development).
> 
> hahahahha! I get 5x++ more traffic from tomcat-dev than from dev@httpd and
> dev@apr together because: - the commit mails go to the same list as the
> dicussion stuff. - there are so many folks subscribed unable to control their
> mail server that nearly every day a couple of autoresponder mails come
> through the list. - there are so many folks subscribed unable to protect
> their machine from viruses so that every day some viruses come through the
> list.
> 
> in addition its anyway a pain with the tomcat-dev list since it drops any
> attachments which makes it harder for everyone to attach a patch. Reason: the
> stupid and totally senseless footer. Even with the footer every few days
> another idiot asks how to unsubscribe - I think that proofes enough that it
> is useless!
> 
> 
>> So I ask our tomcat-dev'ers who are interested in proxy_ajp, proxy_balancer
>>  and so on - are you already subscribed/following dev@httpd?  Or do you 
>> feel a -strong- need for a lower-traffic list?  If no one complains loudly,
>> we will keep all proxy traffic on dev@httpd (cc's to tomcat-dev if you feel
>> a point needs feedback from the tomcat connector folks.)
> 
> I'm fine with that. Since the code now moved into httpd HEAD anyway no jtc
> commiter can commit any more; I f.e. have only karma for the connectors,
> which means now I can only commit to the old dead code; so for me I see no
> reason to keep subscribed to tomcat-dev list; the few posts which are really
> about connectors I can read online, or wait a bit and then crawl though
> bugzilla when the problems appear there....

The idea when starting the ajp-proxy was to get it in httpd HEAD.
The first developpement were done in j-t-c (jakarta-tomcat-connectors) only 
because Henri, Mladen and I don't have commit in httpd and we wanted something 
running for testing very quicky.

Now the code is at its right place and we (as Jakarta committers) have to submit 
patches. (That is what we had done to get the commit rights in Jakarta).

> 
> my 2ct.
> 
> Guenter.
> 
> BTW: also it was asked more than once for a separate section only for
> connectors in BugZilla - currently you have to do complex searches to get all
> the connector issues together since they are bound to Tomcat releases, but
> the connectors are developed independent from Tomcat.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [AJP] proxy status

[Guenter Knauf <ef...@gmx.net>]

Hi,
> That seems rational to me.  The reason for proposing proxy-dev@httpd
> is so that tomcat-dev'ers wouldn't have to swallow the full bandwidth of
> dev@httpd (converse of the problem where they asked anyone in dev@httpd
> to follow tomcat-dev@jakarta for the duration of that proxy_ajp
> development).
hahahahha! 
I get 5x++ more traffic from tomcat-dev than from dev@httpd and dev@apr together because:
- the commit mails go to the same list as the dicussion stuff.
- there are so many folks subscribed unable to control their mail server that nearly every day a couple of autoresponder mails come through the list.
- there are so many folks subscribed unable to protect their machine from viruses so that every day some viruses come through the list.

in addition its anyway a pain with the tomcat-dev list since it drops any attachments which makes it harder for everyone to attach a patch. Reason: the stupid and totally senseless footer. Even with the footer every few days another idiot asks how to unsubscribe - I think that proofes enough that it is useless!

> So I ask our tomcat-dev'ers who are interested in proxy_ajp,
> proxy_balancer
> and so on - are you already subscribed/following dev@httpd?  Or do you
> feel
> a -strong- need for a lower-traffic list?  If no one complains loudly, we
> will keep
> all proxy traffic on dev@httpd (cc's to tomcat-dev if you feel a point
> needs
> feedback from the tomcat connector folks.)
I'm fine with that.
Since the code now moved into httpd HEAD anyway no jtc commiter can commit any more;
I f.e. have only karma for the connectors, which means now I can only commit to the old dead code; so for me I see no reason to keep subscribed to tomcat-dev list; the few posts which are really about connectors I can read online, or wait a bit and then crawl though bugzilla when the problems appear there....

my 2ct.

Guenter.

BTW: also it was asked more than once for a separate section only for connectors in BugZilla - currently you have to do complex searches to get all the connector issues together since they are bound to Tomcat releases, but the connectors are developed independent from Tomcat.

Re: [AJP] proxy status

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

At 11:19 AM 8/12/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:57 AM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>>Although he's subscribed to all three lists, I'd ask that they go either
>>to dev@httpd or proxy-dev@httpd.  The history of the discussions is just
>>as important as the actual code commits.
>
>Can we please not use proxy-dev@httpd?  As long as the code resides in the main httpd repository, development discussion belongs on dev@httpd, IMHO.  

That seems rational to me.  The reason for proposing proxy-dev@httpd
is so that tomcat-dev'ers wouldn't have to swallow the full bandwidth of
dev@httpd (converse of the problem where they asked anyone in dev@httpd
to follow tomcat-dev@jakarta for the duration of that proxy_ajp development).

So I ask our tomcat-dev'ers who are interested in proxy_ajp, proxy_balancer
and so on - are you already subscribed/following dev@httpd?  Or do you feel
a -strong- need for a lower-traffic list?  If no one complains loudly, we will keep
all proxy traffic on dev@httpd (cc's to tomcat-dev if you feel a point needs
feedback from the tomcat connector folks.)

Bill

Re: [AJP] proxy status

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:19:59 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> --On Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:57 AM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 
> > Although he's subscribed to all three lists, I'd ask that they go either
> > to dev@httpd or proxy-dev@httpd.  The history of the discussions is just
> > as important as the actual code commits.
> 
> Can we please not use proxy-dev@httpd?  As long as the code resides in the
> main httpd repository, development discussion belongs on dev@httpd, IMHO.  --
> justin

+1

Re: [AJP] proxy status

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

At 11:19 AM 8/12/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:57 AM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>>Although he's subscribed to all three lists, I'd ask that they go either
>>to dev@httpd or proxy-dev@httpd.  The history of the discussions is just
>>as important as the actual code commits.
>
>Can we please not use proxy-dev@httpd?  As long as the code resides in the main httpd repository, development discussion belongs on dev@httpd, IMHO.  

That seems rational to me.  The reason for proposing proxy-dev@httpd
is so that tomcat-dev'ers wouldn't have to swallow the full bandwidth of
dev@httpd (converse of the problem where they asked anyone in dev@httpd
to follow tomcat-dev@jakarta for the duration of that proxy_ajp development).

So I ask our tomcat-dev'ers who are interested in proxy_ajp, proxy_balancer
and so on - are you already subscribed/following dev@httpd?  Or do you feel
a -strong- need for a lower-traffic list?  If no one complains loudly, we will keep
all proxy traffic on dev@httpd (cc's to tomcat-dev if you feel a point needs
feedback from the tomcat connector folks.)

Bill



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [AJP] proxy status

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

--On Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:57 AM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." 
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> Although he's subscribed to all three lists, I'd ask that they go either
> to dev@httpd or proxy-dev@httpd.  The history of the discussions is just
> as important as the actual code commits.

Can we please not use proxy-dev@httpd?  As long as the code resides in the 
main httpd repository, development discussion belongs on dev@httpd, IMHO.  -- 
justin

Re: [AJP] proxy status

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

At 11:18 PM 8/11/2004, Costin Manolache wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>It would be great if we would have at least one or 2 people who are committers in both projects. Since we can't propose Mladen in apache, maybe we can convince Graham to join tomcat :-)
>>
>>Can't propose mturk?  Why, because he is already active in httpd space?
>
>My point was that it is hard to do development across 2 projects, while none of the developers has CVS access in both.

Hopefully that can be addressed...

>If it is not possible to find a solution to the cvs permissions in either apache or tomcat - then maybe it would be good to have it in a separate repository. It may make it easier to also port it to apache2.0, as a separate standalone module.

at one time we had forked mod_proxy development to its own repository,
since it was nowhere near ready for 2.0 inclusion.  proxy-dev@httpd was
created for just this purpose.  At least from a development traffic point
of view, perhaps it's worth resurrecting that mailing list.

As far as code is concerned, Graham, for the moment, is willing to take
care of those patches.

Although he's subscribed to all three lists, I'd ask that they go either
to dev@httpd or proxy-dev@httpd.  The history of the discussions is just
as important as the actual code commits.

Bill  

Re: [AJP] proxy status

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

At 11:18 PM 8/11/2004, Costin Manolache wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>It would be great if we would have at least one or 2 people who are committers in both projects. Since we can't propose Mladen in apache, maybe we can convince Graham to join tomcat :-)
>>
>>Can't propose mturk?  Why, because he is already active in httpd space?
>
>My point was that it is hard to do development across 2 projects, while none of the developers has CVS access in both.

Hopefully that can be addressed...

>If it is not possible to find a solution to the cvs permissions in either apache or tomcat - then maybe it would be good to have it in a separate repository. It may make it easier to also port it to apache2.0, as a separate standalone module.

at one time we had forked mod_proxy development to its own repository,
since it was nowhere near ready for 2.0 inclusion.  proxy-dev@httpd was
created for just this purpose.  At least from a development traffic point
of view, perhaps it's worth resurrecting that mailing list.

As far as code is concerned, Graham, for the moment, is willing to take
care of those patches.

Although he's subscribed to all three lists, I'd ask that they go either
to dev@httpd or proxy-dev@httpd.  The history of the discussions is just
as important as the actual code commits.

Bill  


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [AJP] proxy status

[Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 02:15 PM 8/7/2004, Costin wrote:
> 
>>Now let's see how to get this in Apache2.0...
> 
> 
> Gonna try to make that happen, if I can somehow merge history (ick)
> 
> 
>>It would be great if we would have at least one or 2 people who are committers in both projects. Since we can't propose Mladen in apache, maybe we can convince Graham to join tomcat :-)
> 
> 
> Can't propose mturk?  Why, because he is already active in httpd space?

My point was that it is hard to do development across 2 projects, while 
none of the developers has CVS access in both.

If it is not possible to find a solution to the cvs permissions in 
either apache or tomcat - then maybe it would be good to have it in a 
separate repository. It may make it easier to also port it to apache2.0, 
as a separate standalone module.


Costin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [AJP] proxy status

[Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 02:15 PM 8/7/2004, Costin wrote:
> 
>>Now let's see how to get this in Apache2.0...
> 
> 
> Gonna try to make that happen, if I can somehow merge history (ick)
> 
> 
>>It would be great if we would have at least one or 2 people who are committers in both projects. Since we can't propose Mladen in apache, maybe we can convince Graham to join tomcat :-)
> 
> 
> Can't propose mturk?  Why, because he is already active in httpd space?

My point was that it is hard to do development across 2 projects, while 
none of the developers has CVS access in both.

If it is not possible to find a solution to the cvs permissions in 
either apache or tomcat - then maybe it would be good to have it in a 
separate repository. It may make it easier to also port it to apache2.0, 
as a separate standalone module.


Costin