Re: Punt the Proxy

I hope I didn't sound too much flaming...

Anyway, I must admit, Ryan, that the effort invested in Apache 2.0, is really impressive and great, and your part in particular. You are the real hero of Apache 2.0.

I also wrote in my original message that Apache 2.0 is going to be a great thing.

And I also wrote that the most important thing is that somebody will become the official maintainer of the proxy.

I remember at least 3 different people (don't remember their names; I think that one of them was from IBM), volunteered to maintain it. I guess that all of them are subscribed to this list.

Unfortunately, I don't think they are subscribed to new-httpd too. So raising the issue in new-httpd, as you and others did, was not enough. It was important to do it here too, and in a provocative way as I used (lakonic message would not be enough to wake the people up).

I believe that proxy must stay in the standard tree. If the problem is that it is not up-to-date, then update it. If the problem is that it's broken, then fix it. If the problem is that there is no maintainer, then find one. But axing it, is like axing other integral parts of Apache. I don't want to list the reasons behind this claim, because there are many in this list that will do it better than me. But just think about one thing: There are many fixes to the core tree of Apache to allow proxy to run. Like proxyreq. And zillion of other things. And if you are going to include the reverse proxy in any case, the difference is not too high. After all, one may compile Apache without the proxy stuff, so the weight of it is not relevant.

Do you need help?

In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related httpd.apache.org Links announce bugs cvs dev docs gui-dev modproxy-dev packagers testers Request more information about Pantek

I just think about the MANY existing users of it. I'm sure there are more users of Apache's proxy, than users of BeOS or NetWare, that you are working so hard to let them use Apache. This is also why I started the "war" between Ben and Ralf regarding SSL (well, now they are fighting each other, but it's much better than the status before, when nothing was done...). It's pity that Apache 2.0 is so close, and the work on SSL even didn't started. There are so many users of SSL. If the users of BeOS and NetWare and EBCDIC are so important for us, the 50,000% more users of the proxy and 100,000% more of SSL (I threw numbers without checking ;-), are VERY important. I don't believe that everything should be included in the tree (somebody suggested to include mod_macro or mod_layout, and I must admit that it sounded bad for me), but axing proxy or mod_rewrite is not looking good for me.

-- 
Eli Marmor
marmor@netmask.it
CTO, Founder
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: +972-50-23-7338          Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel