Hi Graham, On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:53 PM Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > > On 27 Jun 2020, at 14:48, Luca Toscano <toscano.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > the challenges are the same one discussed in your previous email > > thread > > (https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/eb086eafbd9309eb1efedac3bf3dcc410a95d06206c97e7ade01c254%40%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E). > > I think that everybody would love to start working/helping on adding > > HTTP/3 support but the work to be done is huge, involves invasive > > changes to the httpd's source code and the current dev resources don't > > have (rightfully) bandwidth to support the current codebase and plan a > > major refactoring. > > I would be careful with wide reaching statements like this.
This is my opinion, supported by my understanding of the thread above, that's it :). I am just trying to answer to the community with what I think are the road blockers, please correct me where I am wrong. > I’ve been working on identifying and removing blockers in various parts of > the httpd subsystems that prevent httpd to be cleanly event driven, and most > of those blockers have been removed. > > The underlying architecture of httpd is very strong, and would support new > protocols without too much trouble. I don't think that my words implied anything against httpd, but in case you feel in this way apologies. Even if httpd's source is very strong and has been proven reliable during the years, it was visible from the development of HTTP/2 that in order to support new protocols, httpd would have needed to evolve in a significant way, and what I am trying to say is that it needs resources and people time. > The main point is that it must be done carefully and properly, but this is > not a reason to not do it at all. Never said (I think) that it is not doable, only that there is a lot of work to be done. Luca
