Re: httpd-2.0 nightly build log

I have only one concern.

Right now we have Apache 2.0 - which aims to be an HTTP/1.1 reference implementation. Today that RFC includes all of the Proxy functionality.

One thing I forsee (possibly) happening is a splintering of HTTP v.s. HTTP-PROXY v.s. HTTPS v.s. HTTPS over HTTP. You get my thought.

If we will want to continue to support Apache 2.0/Proxy 2.0, while building the next generation of proxy protocol support, I'd suggest where mod_proxy lives today is the ideal location. We could begin implementation of future features, independent of the HTTP/1.1 specification.

If anyone disagrees, please be vocal. I'm 100% up on tight integration between _ALL_ of the subprojects (and will make it so on Win32), but I'd like to know Proxy can continue to evolve in a module-2.1 branch while still supporting the current implementation.

Does that make sense?

Bill

• Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Murcko" <chuck@topsail.org> To: <modproxy-dev@apache.org> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:31 PM Subject: Re: httpd-2.0 nightly build log

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

> IIRC we voted +1 to reintegrate mod_proxy twice on new-httpd, and I
> think mod_proxy was more stable 9 days ago at 2.0.24 than at the time of
> either vote, so I'd dare to consider that a mandate. 8^) We discussed
> alternative packaging (a rollup release) for httpd, but not much has
> come of that idea yet.
>
> So it's my intent to fold the proxy back in before httpd release, unless
> there's a compelling reason not to. For now, we'll go ahead to cut
> milestone releases starting with the 2.0.24 tag. I wouldn't even call
> them beta, as that connotes remaining a separate project or release to
> me. They'll still have version numbers, though.
>
> Like mid air refueling, merging proxy back into httpd will work best
> when both moving pieces are in sync; that's the tricky part.
>
> If you or other folks think this is a nonoptimal way to proceed, let's
> discuss it further. I could be way off base here. Plus I don't always
> communicate what I think well (this sentence might just prove itself).
>
> Chuck
>
Received on Mon Aug 27 19:11:26 2001