Re: mod_proxy in v2.0

[Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>]

OK. Please reply to the proxy development list. I'll add it to the
developer page on the web site.

The fact that we're tagged will make this easy. Thanks, Ryan.

rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> 
> > I've cc'ed Ryan. Ryan, what version was the original 2.0 proxy code?
> 
> We have a tag in the 1.3 tree from when we did our last merge.  That
> should have been around 1.3.9.  I can't really be any more specific than
> that.
> 
> > Depending, it may be easier to proceed with what we've got and patch in
> > place. Thoughts?
> 
> Since we have actually tagged the tree, merging the 1.3 proxy into 2.0 may
> not be that bad.  The reason we stopped merging with 1.3 originally, was
> because 1.3 and 2.0 were diverging rapidly.  I would suspect that the
> proxy code hasn't diverged that much, and a doing a merge would probably
> take about a day.
> 
> > I'd also like to move this to the mod_proxy list. Objections?
> 
> We absolutely must get these discussions moved to the proxy list.  The
> proxy isn't developing because nobody knows what is going on with
> it.  There are a bunch of very cool things that we could do with the
> proxy, but not if nobody knows about them.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom                              rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Chuck
Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group
chuck@topsail.org