httpd-docs-2.0 - mod_proxy.xml 1.17

["i.t" <i....@ithum.de>]

changing mod_proxy.html.en   1.17  22 hours kess

changes:
added a clarification about separation of proxy functionality and mod_cache;
added a link to mod_ssl (for proxy directives)

explanation:
the summary says:
"Please note that the caching function present in mod_proxy up to Apache 
v1.3.x has been removed from mod_proxy and will be incorporated into a new 
module, mod_cache.2

Due to my experience on some lists I've simply added a phrase for 
clarification.
i.t

-- 
 . ___
 |  |  Irmund     Thum
 |  |   

Re: httpd-docs-2.0 - mod_proxy.xml 1.12

["i.t" <i....@ithum.de>]

msg Sonntag, 6. Oktober 2002 17:59 by Joshua Slive:
> I guess I still don't understand your point.  Your earlier comment
> certainly read to me like "if you need to do anything serious, you
> should use squid in place of mod_proxy" (which, in turn, comes pretty
> close to "mod_proxy sucks").
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "should simply give a hint that
> squid is a dedicated cache".

well - let's drop the whole line;
that's seems to me simply the best

i.t
-- 
 . ___
 |  |  Irmund     Thum
 |  |  


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: httpd-docs-2.0 - mod_proxy.xml 1.12

[Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>]

i.t wrote:

> there seems to be some misunderstanding;
> I've never had the intention to make blanket "this module sucks" statements; I 
> even have no idea how this can be interpreted from my text (I'm not a native 
> English speaker).
> Since you're active on so many lists and newsgroups, you may remember those 
> questions related to squid and apache.
> well - the rest "Apache 2 does indeed provide a caching proxy, if you properly 
> configure mod_cache" is, of course, true. And that was exactly my intention 
> to clarify this issue. In other words: you need to configure mod_cache  
> getting an Apache 2 caching proxy.
> This has nothing to do with "squid outperforms mod_proxy in many respect";
> should simply give a hint that squid is a dedicated cache.

I guess I still don't understand your point.  Your earlier comment 
certainly read to me like "if you need to do anything serious, you 
should use squid in place of mod_proxy" (which, in turn, comes pretty 
close to "mod_proxy sucks").

I don't understand what you mean by "should simply give a hint that 
squid is a dedicated cache".

Joshua.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: httpd-docs-2.0 - mod_proxy.xml 1.12

["i.t" <i....@ithum.de>]

msg Sonntag, 6. Oktober 2002 16:39 by Joshua Slive:
> i.t wrote:
> > proposed change for mod_proxy.html.en  1.12  4 days kess
> >
> > the sentence, line 96:
> >
> > Other dedicated forward proxy packages include Squid
> >
> > should be changed to:
> >
> > With very high requirements in terms of the cache, GB range and several
> > hundred or thousand users, you should use Squid
> >
> >  explanation:
> > Squid can be installed as secure reverse proxy, and is therefore no
> > "dedicated forward proxy". Also, the change may clearify in conjunction
> > with the mentioned mod_cache that there is an Open Source alternative for
> > high cache requirements, and even bring back in mind for a reader quickly
> > viewing the page the earlier mentioned statement: ...the Apache
> > 2.0.x-Proxy doesn't cache at all...
>
> Removing the word "dedicated" from the phrase "other dedicated forward
> proxy packages" is fine, since we don't want to misrepresent other
> software.  But the rest of this change is not good.  Apache 2 does
> indeed provide a caching proxy, if you properly configure mod_cache.
> And if we are going to refer everyone with serious needs to squid, then
> we might as well remove mod_proxy from Apache.  It may be true that
> squid outperforms mod_proxy in many respects, but that is an argument
> for improving mod_proxy, not giving up on it.  If there are specific
> things that mod_proxy does not do properly, I have no problem with
> including that in the documentation, as long as it is also filed in the
> bug database.  But making blanket "this module sucks" statements does
> not seem productive.
>
> Joshua.

there seems to be some misunderstanding;
I've never had the intention to make blanket "this module sucks" statements; I 
even have no idea how this can be interpreted from my text (I'm not a native 
English speaker).
Since you're active on so many lists and newsgroups, you may remember those 
questions related to squid and apache.
well - the rest "Apache 2 does indeed provide a caching proxy, if you properly 
configure mod_cache" is, of course, true. And that was exactly my intention 
to clarify this issue. In other words: you need to configure mod_cache  
getting an Apache 2 caching proxy.
This has nothing to do with "squid outperforms mod_proxy in many respect";
should simply give a hint that squid is a dedicated cache.
Regards
i.t
-- 
 . ___
 |  |  Irmund     Thum
 |  |   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: httpd-docs-2.0 - mod_proxy.xml 1.12

[Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>]

i.t wrote:
> proposed change for mod_proxy.html.en  1.12  4 days kess
> 
> the sentence, line 96:
> 
> Other dedicated forward proxy packages include Squid
> 
> should be changed to:
> 
> With very high requirements in terms of the cache, GB range and several 
> hundred or thousand users, you should use Squid
> 
>  explanation:
> Squid can be installed as secure reverse proxy, and is therefore no "dedicated 
> forward proxy". Also, the change may clearify in conjunction with the 
> mentioned mod_cache that there is an Open Source alternative for high cache 
> requirements, and even bring back in mind for a reader quickly viewing the 
> page the earlier mentioned statement: ...the Apache 2.0.x-Proxy doesn't cache 
> at all...

Removing the word "dedicated" from the phrase "other dedicated forward 
proxy packages" is fine, since we don't want to misrepresent other 
software.  But the rest of this change is not good.  Apache 2 does 
indeed provide a caching proxy, if you properly configure mod_cache. 
And if we are going to refer everyone with serious needs to squid, then 
we might as well remove mod_proxy from Apache.  It may be true that 
squid outperforms mod_proxy in many respects, but that is an argument 
for improving mod_proxy, not giving up on it.  If there are specific 
things that mod_proxy does not do properly, I have no problem with 
including that in the documentation, as long as it is also filed in the 
bug database.  But making blanket "this module sucks" statements does 
not seem productive.

Joshua.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

httpd-docs-2.0 - mod_proxy.xml 1.12

["i.t" <i....@ithum.de>]

proposed change for mod_proxy.html.en  1.12  4 days kess

the sentence, line 96:

Other dedicated forward proxy packages include Squid

should be changed to:

With very high requirements in terms of the cache, GB range and several 
hundred or thousand users, you should use Squid

 explanation:
Squid can be installed as secure reverse proxy, and is therefore no "dedicated 
forward proxy". Also, the change may clearify in conjunction with the 
mentioned mod_cache that there is an Open Source alternative for high cache 
requirements, and even bring back in mind for a reader quickly viewing the 
page the earlier mentioned statement: ...the Apache 2.0.x-Proxy doesn't cache 
at all...

i.t
-- 
 . ___
 |  |  Irmund     Thum
 |  |   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: typo in docs apache1.3 - core.html - 1.3.5

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* i.t wrote:

> core.html.en:    Apache 1.3.5 and later
> core.html.en:    <p>This directive is used to control how Apache 1.3.5
> and later
> core.html.fr:    disponible &agrave; partir de la version 1.3.5
> d'Apache. 
> 
> 1.3.5 should replaced by 1.3.2

no, it shouldn't. the original directive "Win32InterpreterSource" was
introduced after 1.3.4 and renamed to "ScriptInterpreterSource" before
1.3.5. 

nd
-- 
my @japh = (sub{q~Just~},sub{q~Another~},sub{q~Perl~},sub{q~Hacker~});
my $japh = q[sub japh { }]; print join       #########################
 [ $japh =~ /{(.)}/] -> [0] => map $_ -> ()  #            André Malo #
=> @japh;                                    # http://www.perlig.de/ #

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

typo in docs apache1.3 - core.html - 1.3.5

["i.t" <i....@ithum.de>]

well - just a typo detected:

core.html.en:    Apache 1.3.5 and later
core.html.en:    <p>This directive is used to control how Apache 1.3.5 and 
later
core.html.fr:    disponible &agrave; partir de la version 1.3.5 d'Apache.

1.3.5 should replaced by 1.3.2

i.t
-- 
 . ___
 |  |  Irmund     Thum
 |  |   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: httpd-docs-2.0 - mod_proxy.xml 1.17

[Astrid Kessler <ke...@kess-net.de>]

> * Irmund Thum wrote:
> 
>>>changes:
>>>added a clarification about separation of proxy functionality and
> mod_cache;
>>>added a link to mod_ssl (for proxy directives)
> 
> You should use <module></module> for links to modules.
> For example: <module>mod_ssl</module>

committed with the change to <module>mod_ssl</module>
thank you

Kess

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: httpd-docs-2.0 - mod_proxy.xml 1.17

[Tim Gerundt <ti...@gerundt.de>]

* Irmund Thum wrote:

>>changes:
>>added a clarification about separation of proxy functionality and
mod_cache;
>>added a link to mod_ssl (for proxy directives)

You should use <module></module> for links to modules.
For example: <module>mod_ssl</module>

*ww*

Tim


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org