Re[2]: Default Modules

[Astrid Keßler]

>>I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was
>>tired of disabling it every time I do a new install.  I think we
>>should reconsider what modules are enabled by default.  Here is my
>>list of suggested changes:
>>
>>mod_version: all -> yes

+-0, no opinion

>>mod_asis: yes -> no

'most' would be much better
We may change this with 2.2, but not for 2.0.
-1 (vote, note veto) for 2.0
-0 for 2.2

>>mod_imap: most -> no

+1

>>mod_dumpio: most -> all
>>mod_rewrite: most -> yes

-1 (vote, not veto)

as long as 'all' does not mean 'really all stable modules', so long
mod_dumpio should be 'no'. It is for testing purposes, not for general
use.

mod_rewrite should stay at 'most'. It is to complex (especially for new
users) to be a default module.

>>mod_ident: most -> no

+-0 no opinion

>>mod_ssl: no -> all
>>mod_proxy (and friends) no -> all

-1 (not a veto, but a very strong vote, as long as 'all' is not 'all')

mod_ssl as a default module may (and will) be a pain for a lot of people
never used it before. We may think about switching it to 'most' with
2.2. Same for mod_proxy, because it is a module for a very special
usecase.

Besides the above voting:
I'm +++1 to change the meaning of 'all' for 2.2 to 'all stable modules'

Kess

Re: Default Modules

[Jim Jagielski]

On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:26 PM, Rici Lake wrote:
default: modules which would be used in virtually any useful httpd 
server
most: modules which would be regularly used in a non-minimal httpd 
server
all: modules which are useful and stable
no: modules which are deprecated, experimental, or examples

I think people are surprised by the absence of mod_ssl and mod_proxy 
after
having done a ./configure --enable-mods-shared=all


+1

Re: Default Modules

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> I do wish it were renamed to mod_imagemap though!  mod_imap is a poor name.

+1 - lets leave the 80ties behind us :-)

Dw.

Re: Default Modules

[Rici Lake]

On 6-Apr-05, at 12:56 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
mod_asis: yes -> no
I'd prefer -> most as it is rarely used but not totally useless.

Others mentioned mod_ssl which I think is too much trouble to be worth
enabling other than when requested explicitly - there's the whole 
crypto
regs issue and it does link in another lib, which is something that I
prefer limiting to when it is actually needed.
So what are the criteria for "yes", "no", "most" and "all"?
I think it would be more productive to come up with common
criteria than to argue about individual modules.
Perhaps "all" should just go away. It obviously does not
really mean "all" and it is hard to come up with a good
description of what it does mean.
As I said earlier, a lot of people seem to be surprised at
what "all" does not include (ssl and proxy, for example).
And as no tool is provided to list what "all" and "most"
actually do, people are pretty well left to their own
intuitions.
The current list (as produced by the shell script I pasted
in an earlier message) is:
3. all  cern_meta
3. all  log_forensic
3. all  mime_magic
3. all  unique_id
3. all  usertrack
3. all  version
So what do those six modules have in common?

Re: Default Modules

[André Malo]

* William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> At 01:41 PM 4/6/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:30 PM -0400 Rich Bowen
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I do wish it were renamed to mod_imagemap though!  mod_imap is a poor
> > name.
>
> ++1 - 8.3 filenames are so 1980 :)
>
> We are changing a number of other module names, this rename
> would be much more intuitive.

+1 here as well.

nd
-- 
"Das Verhalten von Gates hatte mir bewiesen, dass ich auf ihn und seine
beiden Gefährten nicht zu zählen brauchte" -- Karl May, "Winnetou III"

Im Westen was neues: 

Re: Default Modules

[André Malo]

* Paul Querna wrote:

> I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was
> tired of disabling it every time I do a new install.  I think we should
> reconsider what modules are enabled by default.  Here is my list of
> suggested changes:
>
> mod_version: all -> yes

+1.

> mod_asis: yes -> no

-> most

> mod_imap: most -> no
> mod_dumpio: most -> all

+1

> mod_rewrite: most -> yes

-1 (vote, not veto)

nd
-- 
Gib' mal folgendes in die Kommandozeile ein (und einen Moment warten):

net send localhost "Buuuh!"
Na, erschreckt?  -- Markus Becker in mpdsh

Re: Default Modules

[William A. Rowe, Jr.]

At 01:41 PM 4/6/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:30 PM -0400 Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
>
>I do wish it were renamed to mod_imagemap though!  mod_imap is a poor name.

++1 - 8.3 filenames are so 1980 :)

We are changing a number of other module names, this rename
would be much more intuitive.

Bill 

Re: Default Modules

[Mads Toftum]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:15:38AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
> I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was 
> tired of disabling it every time I do a new install.  I think we should 
> reconsider what modules are enabled by default.  Here is my list of 
> suggested changes:
> 
> mod_version: all -> yes
> mod_asis: yes -> no

I'd prefer -> most as it is rarely used but not totally useless.

> mod_imap: most -> no
> mod_dumpio: most -> all
> mod_rewrite: most -> yes
> 
+1 on those - as far as I'm concerned, mod_imap should have gone years
ago.
Others mentioned mod_ssl which I think is too much trouble to be worth
enabling other than when requested explicitly - there's the whole crypto
regs issue and it does link in another lib, which is something that I
prefer limiting to when it is actually needed.

vh

Mads Toftum
-- 
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall

Re: Default Modules

[William A. Rowe, Jr.]

At 11:15 AM 4/6/2005, you wrote:
>I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was tired of 
>disabling it every time I do a new install.  I think we should reconsider what 
>modules are enabled by default.  Here is my list of suggested changes:
>
>mod_version: all -> yes
>mod_asis: yes -> no
>mod_imap: most -> no
>mod_dumpio: most -> all
>mod_rewrite: most -> yes
>
>I think adding mod_rewrite as a default is the most controversial... so, what 
>about the others :) ?

rewrite does -nothing- if not told to.  I'm happy with that.
Disabling modules is more controversial.  Very few use imap,
so I agree.  I'd disagree with asis.  It does nothing if not
told to, and provides a vital functionality for a limited
number of cgi's.

At 11:26 AM 4/6/2005, Rici Lake wrote:

>mod_ident: most -> no
>mod_ssl: no -> all
>mod_proxy (and friends) no -> all

Totally disagree with proxy and ssl.  Installed, they change
the entire scope of httpd operation.  To run a basic http:
protocol server, you use neither.  To add https: may or may
not violate local ordinances, so we must not enable it unless
explicitly told to, and to add proxy behavior means you have
a specific intent for that httpd server.

I agree with ident for the very same reasons.  Extending http
using the (very -slow- and infrequently deployed) ident method
is an exceptional, not typical feature, and has nothing to do
with the http: protocol.

Re: Default Modules

[Justin Erenkrantz]

--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:30 PM -0400 Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

Have you ever used mod_imap? Or, at least, since 1996? I have a hard
Yes.  Yes.
I do wish it were renamed to mod_imagemap though!  mod_imap is a poor name.
Note that we could always re-introduce the imagemap CGI program.  ;-)
*chuckle*  -- justin

Re: Default Modules

[Rich Bowen]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

>> mod_asis: yes -> no
>> mod_imap: most -> no
> 
> 
> I would prefer we keep mod_imap as most.  Probably the same for
> mod_asis. These were default modules in 2.0 - therefore, I think
> disabling them unless explicit in 2.2 could be worrisome.

Serously?

Have you ever used mod_imap? Or, at least, since 1996? I have a hard
time even explaining to people what mod_imap does, let alone finding
anyone who has actually ever used it. I'm completely certain that nobody
would ever notice if we just completely yanked it from the distribution.
Well, except that I'd have one less thing to complain about. :-)

--Rich

Re: Default Modules

[Nick Kew]

Rich Bowen wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
> 
>>I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was
>>tired of disabling it every time I do a new install.  I think we should
>>reconsider what modules are enabled by default.  Here is my list of
>>suggested changes:
>>
>>mod_version: all -> yes
>>mod_asis: yes -> no

No?  wouldn't "most" be sufficient?  It's not totally obscure ...

>>mod_imap: most -> no
>>mod_dumpio: most -> all
>>mod_rewrite: most -> yes

Hmmm...  well, it's very popular, but very commonly used when
totally unnecessary.  Also big.  Not convinced about changing it.


> How about mod_ssl being on in "most"?

Disagree.  It's big and complex and should only ever be *deliberately*
enabled, IMHO.  Similar comments apply to things like proxy and cache:
they shouldn't catch a rookie admin by stealth.

-- 
Nick Kew

Re: Default Modules

[Justin Erenkrantz]

--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:15 AM -0700 Paul Querna 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was tired
of disabling it every time I do a new install.  I think we should
reconsider what modules are enabled by default.  Here is my list of
suggested changes:
mod_version: all -> yes
Sure.
mod_asis: yes -> no
mod_imap: most -> no
I would prefer we keep mod_imap as most.  Probably the same for mod_asis. 
These were default modules in 2.0 - therefore, I think disabling them 
unless explicit in 2.2 could be worrisome.

mod_dumpio: most -> all
mod_dumpio shouldn't have been most as it is debugging only...
mod_rewrite: most -> yes
I would rather prefer we make mod_rewrite 'no', but that's me.  =)
I'm also fine promoting mod_proxy and mod_cache to most in 2.2.  -- justin

Re: Default Modules

[Justin Erenkrantz]

--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:29 PM -0400 Rich Bowen 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

How about mod_ssl being on in "most"?
In the past, we've said that SSL must be explicit because of the crypto 
legal restrictions.  -- justin

Re: Default Modules

[Rich Bowen]

Paul Querna wrote:
> I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was
> tired of disabling it every time I do a new install.  I think we should
> reconsider what modules are enabled by default.  Here is my list of
> suggested changes:
> 
> mod_version: all -> yes
> mod_asis: yes -> no
> mod_imap: most -> no
> mod_dumpio: most -> all
> mod_rewrite: most -> yes

+1 on all of these.

> I think adding mod_rewrite as a default is the most controversial... so,
> what about the others :) ?

How about mod_ssl being on in "most"?

--Rich

Re: Default Modules

[Rici Lake]

On 6-Apr-05, at 11:15 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was 
tired of disabling it every time I do a new install.  I think we 
should reconsider what modules are enabled by default.  Here is my 
list of suggested changes:

mod_version: all -> yes
mod_asis: yes -> no
mod_imap: most -> no
mod_dumpio: most -> all
+1 to all of those. I would also add:
mod_ident: most -> no
mod_ssl: no -> all
mod_proxy (and friends) no -> all
I'm basing that on the following criteria:
default: modules which would be used in virtually any useful httpd 
server
most: modules which would be regularly used in a non-minimal httpd 
server
all: modules which are useful and stable
no: modules which are deprecated, experimental, or examples

I think people are surprised by the absence of mod_ssl and mod_proxy 
after
having done a ./configure --enable-mods-shared=all

mod_rewrite: most -> yes
I'm not sure that mod_rewrite actually fits the criterion I proposed for
default; I'd be just as happy with it staying in most.
Rici.
PS: I've found the following possibly outrageous shell script to be 
useful.

grep -h '^APACHE_MODULE' modules/*/config*.m4 | cut -c 15- | cut -f5,1 
-d, | \
sed -E $'s/$/,/; s/([^,]*), ?([^,)]*).*/\\2\t\\1/;
s/^most\t/2. most\t\t/;
s/^\t/3. all\t\t/;
s/^yes\t/1. default\t/;
s/^no\t/4. explicit\t/;
s/^\\$proxy.*\t/4. explicit\t/;
s/^\\$.*so\t/1. if needed\t/;
s/^static\t/1. default\t/' | sort

Default Modules

[Paul Querna]

I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was 
tired of disabling it every time I do a new install.  I think we should 
reconsider what modules are enabled by default.  Here is my list of 
suggested changes:

mod_version: all -> yes
mod_asis: yes -> no
mod_imap: most -> no
mod_dumpio: most -> all
mod_rewrite: most -> yes
I think adding mod_rewrite as a default is the most controversial... so, 
what about the others :) ?

A setting of 'yes' means the module will be enabled by default, without 
any extra flags to be set by the user.

A setting of 'no' means the user must explicitly enable the module, eg, 
--enable-imap.

A setting of 'all' or 'most' means it will be included in 
--enable-mods-shared=[all |most]

-Paul