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 2014/04/30 18:51:22 UTC
mod_spdy
I'm thinking... we should likely create a sep mod_spdy
repo (ala http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/)
instead of it being in/under trunk.
What do you say?
AW: mod_spdy
Posted by Plüm,
Rüdiger,
Vodafone Group <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Paul Querna [mailto:paul@querna.org]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. April 2014 19:42
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: mod_spdy
>
> Right now it is a beast of C++ code. I'd vote separate repo, take
> learnings from it as a basis for HTTP/2.0.
+1 to this.
Regards
Rüdiger
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > I'm thinking... we should likely create a sep mod_spdy
> > repo (ala http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/)
> > instead of it being in/under trunk.
> >
> > What do you say?
Re: mod_spdy
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
Right now it is a beast of C++ code. I'd vote separate repo, take
learnings from it as a basis for HTTP/2.0.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking... we should likely create a sep mod_spdy
> repo (ala http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/)
> instead of it being in/under trunk.
>
> What do you say?
Re: mod_spdy
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking... we should likely create a sep mod_spdy
> repo (ala http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/)
> instead of it being in/under trunk.
>
> What do you say?
+1, didn't want to propose it myself and be a buzzkill.
Re: mod_spdy
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
All done:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_spdy/
Re: mod_spdy
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Requested in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7653
On Apr 30, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking... we should likely create a sep mod_spdy
> repo (ala http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/)
> instead of it being in/under trunk.
>
> What do you say?
>
> Maybe it should be a sub-project, maybe it should live in a separate httpd branch.
>
> What is the point of pulling in mod_spdy?
>
> A. Provide releases with existing mod_spdy feature set
>
> "HTTP Server Project"-ize it and/or rescue an abandoned project?
>
> B. Use it as a basis for HTTP/2.0 support in some future httpd release.
>
> C. ??
>
> --
> Born in Roswell... married an alien...
> http://emptyhammock.com/
> http://edjective.org/
>
Re: mod_spdy
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Apr 30, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking... we should likely create a sep mod_spdy
> repo (ala http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/)
> instead of it being in/under trunk.
>
> What do you say?
>
> Maybe it should be a sub-project, maybe it should live in a separate httpd branch.
>
That's what I'm thinking... a sep subproject
just like fcgid
> What is the point of pulling in mod_spdy?
>
> A. Provide releases with existing mod_spdy feature set
Yep, for 2.2 and 2.4.
>
> "HTTP Server Project"-ize it and/or rescue an abandoned project?
+1..
>
> B. Use it as a basis for HTTP/2.0 support in some future httpd release.
Learn/use what we can.
>
> C. ??
>
> --
> Born in Roswell... married an alien...
> http://emptyhammock.com/
> http://edjective.org/
>
Re: mod_spdy
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking... we should likely create a sep mod_spdy
> repo (ala http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/)
> instead of it being in/under trunk.
>
> What do you say?
>
Maybe it should be a sub-project, maybe it should live in a separate httpd
branch.
What is the point of pulling in mod_spdy?
A. Provide releases with existing mod_spdy feature set
"HTTP Server Project"-ize it and/or rescue an abandoned project?
B. Use it as a basis for HTTP/2.0 support in some future httpd release.
C. ??
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/
http://edjective.org/