At 04:48 PM 5/2/2005, Paul Querna wrote: >Personally, I have held off on starting refactors of code, because I do >not want to be detrimental to the ability to make a 2.2 Branch. > >I would like to investigate making more parts of httpd async, in >conjunction with the Event MPM. I would also like to redo some of the >configuration system -- but I have avoided working on these, because of >my personal belief that 2.1-dev has enough for a new GA branch.
First - let me say I TOTALLY agree with your concept for more async features and design!!! Second - there is no way that disconnected/async events that can jump threads will ever fit into httpd-2. That quantum leap must be httpd-3 because it breaks the assumptions and gross hacks of many module authors. Even if we 1. never leap threads between translate_name and finalize_request, therefore 2. restrict all async to the reception of the request packet; there will still be affected modules, mod_sspi and user tracking apps that span pipelines - which don't expect data to jump threads on the connection layer. >I think there is wide agreement that /trunk/ should always be open for >commits. I don't imagine that my personal development ideas match >everyone, and they are not my only reason for wanting a 2.1.x branch. Absolute rule, trunk/ should always build as well. If it can't build, it should be reparable within a very short window. Hopefully not by the committer, but more likely, by platform maintainers 'catching up'. That said, I'm strongly -1 on dropping such radical changes directly into trunk/. There is no way code changes on this scale are ever CTR. We have SVN, so creating sandboxes/experimental/proof-of-concept branches are trivial :) This was true of every major refactoring of Apache since Shambala. Create a sandbox today to start experimenting with async models. >This has somewhat turned into the real question, What are the show >stoppers for a 2.2 GA Branch? > >If you believe an issue is a show stopper for a GA Branch, please add it >to the STATUS File. So to amend your original proposal; on May 13; * tagging an alpha candidate * identifying all showstoppers to GA and if that list is short enough, we will be able to read how long the window from 2.1-dev to 2.2 GA actually is, and if we are fitting into something that resembles a one month timeframe. Bill
