httpd-2.0 policies was Re: ApacheCon scheduling

[Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:12:30AM +0100, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> "Justin Erenkrantz" <je...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> > Especially now that we went GA on 2.0, we should meet to discuss
> > 2.1 or 3.0...  Waiting until Nov will just suck.  -- justin
> 
> I'm going to get a gun now! :) Before talking about 2.1, I (and I know I'm
> voicing concerns of _a_lot_ of people) would really _love_ to see 2.0 settle
> down for a little while...
> 
> At least for the sake of us poor module-writers :) :) :)

Well, there are a number of issues that I think we'd need to hash
out before thinking about what comes next.  Should we open 2.1
now?  I don't think so.  But, should we in three or four months?
Perhaps - it depends how 2.0 goes.

A much more important question that we need to start thinking
now about is how set are we on this module API?  Are we going to
allow changes to go into 2.0 that require module authors to
modify their code?  I believe I'm pretty dead set against that.
2.0 API is now closed.  If we want to change the API, we need
to do it in a 2.1.  But, I think we need a set policy.  That
requires discussion here on-list.  Hopefully, we can start
that now.  I believe the answer to this question dictates how
soon we open 2.1/3.0.

But, we'd also benefit (IMHO) from a meeting face-to-face where
a majority of our developers can go to.  I'm just curious how
many of our developers would *not* attend ApacheCon Las Vegas
in November.  If we have enough that can't make it, I think it
warrants us considering other options for meeting.  Perhaps
I might be the only one who can't/won't make it.  If so, then
so be it.  -- justin

Re: httpd-2.0 policies was Re: ApacheCon scheduling

[Brian Pane <br...@cnet.com>]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

>Well, there are a number of issues that I think we'd need to hash
>out before thinking about what comes next.  Should we open 2.1
>now?  I don't think so.  But, should we in three or four months?
>Perhaps - it depends how 2.0 goes.
>

I think we also need a more solid definition of what differentiates
2.1 development from 2.0 maintenance--and, for that matter, what
differentiates 2.1 from 3.0.  The definitions currently in the
ROADMAP file are mostly a list of things that didn't fit in 2.0.
IMHO, now is a good time to discuss in more general terms what
2.1 and 3.0 mean--both from a developer's perspective and from
a user's perspective.  E.g., "2.1 will give users improved modularity
and configurability, and 3.0 will provide best-in-class scalability
and performance" (or something like that :-)

--Brian

Re: httpd-2.0 policies was Re: ApacheCon scheduling

[Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> My concern is that when we make all of the renames to APR (or
> any other changes), we'll be killing our third-parties who tried to

Simple renames I can handle.  That's what apr_compat.h is for.  Other
changes should be much more scrutinized IMO.

--Cliff

--------------------------------------------------------------
   Cliff Woolley
   cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
   Charlottesville, VA

RE: httpd-2.0 policies was Re: ApacheCon scheduling

[Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>]

> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:13:31PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > We have never before frozen an API, and I would prefer that we
didn't
> > freeze this one.  If an API needs to change, then it should be
allowed
> > to change.  The important thing is that we don't change APIs just
for
> > the sake of changing APIs.  I also believe that we have done a VERY
good
> > job of creating a structure that won't require API changes in 2.0.
But,
> > I don't think we should rule it out just because we went GA.
> 
> My concern is that when we make all of the renames to APR (or
> any other changes), we'll be killing our third-parties who tried to
> migrate to 2.0 and we changed the underlying API on them breaking
> their work.  I'm not sure I can support that.  -- Justin

The point is that we have been able to support it in the past.  If we
change the name of a function, then we must create a macro so that we
don't break every function that uses it.  If we need to add an argument
to a function, then add the argument and bump the MMN.  As long as the
changes are required, then we have to do them.

Again, the key is to make sure that they are really required before the
API is changed.

Ryan

Re: httpd-2.0 policies was Re: ApacheCon scheduling

[Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:13:31PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> We have never before frozen an API, and I would prefer that we didn't
> freeze this one.  If an API needs to change, then it should be allowed
> to change.  The important thing is that we don't change APIs just for
> the sake of changing APIs.  I also believe that we have done a VERY good
> job of creating a structure that won't require API changes in 2.0.  But,
> I don't think we should rule it out just because we went GA.

My concern is that when we make all of the renames to APR (or
any other changes), we'll be killing our third-parties who tried to
migrate to 2.0 and we changed the underlying API on them breaking
their work.  I'm not sure I can support that.  -- justin

RE: httpd-2.0 policies was Re: ApacheCon scheduling

[Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>]

> > A much more important question that we need to start thinking
> > now about is how set are we on this module API?  Are we going to
> > allow changes to go into 2.0 that require module authors to
> > modify their code?  I believe I'm pretty dead set against that.
> > 2.0 API is now closed.  If we want to change the API, we need
> > to do it in a 2.1.  But, I think we need a set policy.  That
> > requires discussion here on-list.  Hopefully, we can start
> > that now.  I believe the answer to this question dictates how
> > soon we open 2.1/3.0.
> 
> And as a module writer, I'd like to see that API carved in stone for a
> _long_ time now... It's basically only 3 months that I (in my extreme
> dumbness of C, I admit) can write an Apache 2.0 module without
starting to
> cry trying to figure out what segfaults (my code or your code)...

We have never before frozen an API, and I would prefer that we didn't
freeze this one.  If an API needs to change, then it should be allowed
to change.  The important thing is that we don't change APIs just for
the sake of changing APIs.  I also believe that we have done a VERY good
job of creating a structure that won't require API changes in 2.0.  But,
I don't think we should rule it out just because we went GA.

Ryan

Re: httpd-2.0 policies was Re: ApacheCon scheduling

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

"Justin Erenkrantz" <je...@apache.org> wrote:

> Well, there are a number of issues that I think we'd need to hash
> out before thinking about what comes next.  Should we open 2.1
> now?  I don't think so.  But, should we in three or four months?
> Perhaps - it depends how 2.0 goes.

Good... You scared the bejesus out of me :)

> A much more important question that we need to start thinking
> now about is how set are we on this module API?  Are we going to
> allow changes to go into 2.0 that require module authors to
> modify their code?  I believe I'm pretty dead set against that.
> 2.0 API is now closed.  If we want to change the API, we need
> to do it in a 2.1.  But, I think we need a set policy.  That
> requires discussion here on-list.  Hopefully, we can start
> that now.  I believe the answer to this question dictates how
> soon we open 2.1/3.0.

And as a module writer, I'd like to see that API carved in stone for a
_long_ time now... It's basically only 3 months that I (in my extreme
dumbness of C, I admit) can write an Apache 2.0 module without starting to
cry trying to figure out what segfaults (my code or your code)...

Before someone will pick up and try out _my_ modules, it'll take _AT_LEAST_
another six months good, and after that, I'd really like to get some
vacation and try to get a girlfriend rather than chasing web-servers :)

> But, we'd also benefit (IMHO) from a meeting face-to-face where
> a majority of our developers can go to.  I'm just curious how
> many of our developers would *not* attend ApacheCon Las Vegas
> in November.  If we have enough that can't make it, I think it
> warrants us considering other options for meeting.  Perhaps
> I might be the only one who can't/won't make it.  If so, then
> so be it.  -- justin

Do it on this side of the pond and I'm game... :) Or another good chance
would be Oreilly's Open Source conference in San Diego in late July (just
because I'm going to be there) or around that area (CA) around that time.

    Pier

--
I think that it's extremely foolish to name a server after the current U.S.
President.                                                 B.W. Fitzpatrick