You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2005/03/09 17:00:07 UTC
Re: towards a 2.05 release
With the approach of httpd 2.1-beta (in anticipation of 2.2 GA)
I'd like to propose the httpd project integrate apreq into the
core distribution. This project has evolved considerably since
it was first considered.
Comment or vote?
Bill
At 08:49 AM 3/9/2005, Eli Marmor wrote:
>Following the major patches, API changes, modifications and improvements
>since 2.04, is it possible to release a pre-2.05 (or a candidate to
>become 2.05) so we can start testing it and find bugs or problems under
>specific platforms, environments and configurations?
>
>I also want to use this opportunity to thank Joe, Stas, Max, Randy,
>Bojan, and all the other great developers who brought libapreq2 to its
>current status.
>
>--
>Eli Marmor
>marmor@netmask.it
>Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
>__________________________________________________________
>Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St.
>Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004
>Mobile: +972-50-5237338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
Re: towards a 2.05 release
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 1:17 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>> Bingo.
>>
>> I see any perl-wrapper as surviving very nicely in mod_perl, given
>> that it would be reflecting functions exposed from the core distro.
>>
>> As they mention, the perl wrappers still need refreshing.
>
>
> AFAICT, that module requires libapreq2. So, we'd have to bring it all
> into our tree. So, my -1 for trunk still holds until after 2.2.x is
> branched off and on its way. I just don't think it is in a state where
> it'd be easy to bring into our tree and not have it delay the beta
> process unduly.
>
> IMHO, it can wait for 2.4. -- justin
>
I agree with Justin. This might be a good thing for the future, but the
timing isn't right to do it now.
I think the focus should be on getting a 2.2 beta out first, and revisit
this once 2.2 is branched.
-Paul
Re: towards a 2.05 release
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 1:12 PM -0800 Paul Querna
<ch...@force-elite.com> wrote:
> I don't see how an optional module that depends on an external library is
> that helpful compared to the current situation. (Module bundled with the
> Library.)
>
> It makes the most sense to me to include the library and module if we do
> this. I don't think including both should be done at this time.
That is precisely my feelings as well. -- justin
Re: towards a 2.05 release
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>AFAICT, that module requires libapreq2. So, we'd have to bring it all
>>into our tree.
>
>
> Why would you need to do that? I don't know what Bill's expecting,
> but it'd be a total surprise to me if he were suggesting making
> mod_apreq2 a mandatory module for 2.2 (ie, always installed). OTOH,
> C developers that want to use libapreq2 for their apache modules
> aren't well served unless apreq becomes a core feature of the server.
> Which might be a good idea for 2.4, or not.
>
> So if I were the one making the proposal for 2.2 inclusion, I'd
> offer to include those 4 C files referenced earlier, and configuring
> httpd to treat them as optional module.
>
I don't see how an optional module that depends on an external library
is that helpful compared to the current situation. (Module bundled with
the Library.)
It makes the most sense to me to include the library and module if we do
this. I don't think including both should be done at this time.
-Paul
Re: towards a 2.05 release
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> writes:
[...]
> AFAICT, that module requires libapreq2. So, we'd have to bring it all
> into our tree.
Why would you need to do that? I don't know what Bill's expecting,
but it'd be a total surprise to me if he were suggesting making
mod_apreq2 a mandatory module for 2.2 (ie, always installed). OTOH,
C developers that want to use libapreq2 for their apache modules
aren't well served unless apreq becomes a core feature of the server.
Which might be a good idea for 2.4, or not.
So if I were the one making the proposal for 2.2 inclusion, I'd
offer to include those 4 C files referenced earlier, and configuring
httpd to treat them as optional module.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: towards a 2.05 release
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 1:17 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Bingo.
>
> I see any perl-wrapper as surviving very nicely in mod_perl, given
> that it would be reflecting functions exposed from the core distro.
>
> As they mention, the perl wrappers still need refreshing.
AFAICT, that module requires libapreq2. So, we'd have to bring it all into
our tree. So, my -1 for trunk still holds until after 2.2.x is branched
off and on its way. I just don't think it is in a state where it'd be easy
to bring into our tree and not have it delay the beta process unduly.
IMHO, it can wait for 2.4. -- justin
Re: towards a 2.05 release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 12:07 PM 3/9/2005, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> writes:
>
>> In general, I'm not really comfortable with adding a large amount of
>> perl code to our tree.
>
>I think Bill's assuming some familiarity with how the httpd-apreq project
>is organized. The actual code I assume he's talkabout dropping into
>the httpd tree is our apache2 module, which is only a couple of C files.
>If you're looking for something to review, I'd suggest
>
> <URL: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/
> apreq/branches/multi-env-unstable/module/apache2/ >
Bingo.
I see any perl-wrapper as surviving very nicely in mod_perl, given
that it would be reflecting functions exposed from the core distro.
As they mention, the perl wrappers still need refreshing.
Bill
Re: towards a 2.05 release
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> writes:
> --On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 10:00 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>> With the approach of httpd 2.1-beta (in anticipation of 2.2 GA)
>> I'd like to propose the httpd project integrate apreq into the
>> core distribution. This project has evolved considerably since
>> it was first considered.
>>
>> Comment or vote?
>
> In general, I'm not really comfortable with adding a large amount of
> perl code to our tree.
I think Bill's assuming some familiarity with how the httpd-apreq project
is organized. The actual code I assume he's talkabout dropping into
the httpd tree is our apache2 module, which is only a couple of C files.
If you're looking for something to review, I'd suggest
<URL: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/
apreq/branches/multi-env-unstable/module/apache2/ >
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: towards a 2.05 release
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 10:00 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> With the approach of httpd 2.1-beta (in anticipation of 2.2 GA)
> I'd like to propose the httpd project integrate apreq into the
> core distribution. This project has evolved considerably since
> it was first considered.
>
> Comment or vote?
In general, I'm not really comfortable with adding a large amount of perl
code to our tree. httpd is a C project not a perl project - I'm not
overjoyed at the prospect of having to maintain perl code. I, of course,
am from the camp that anything in our tree I am collectively responsible
for.
Additionally, I think merging apreq should be something for 2.4 not 2.2.
Adding it right *now* would cause a lot of delays. For example, from a
quick glance, they use automake - which is a big no-no. So, it'd take a
lot of effort to get it integrated in our build system. I really think
that effort would best be placed in getting a solid 2.2 release out sooner.
If there is still a lot of interest, this can be something we merge in
right after we branch 2.2.x off into 2.3.x. And can be an impetus for
2.4.x's release.
So, -0 in concept. And, -1 for doing it today - it's not in a state that
can just slide into our tree at all without issues. -- justin