Re: Fold mod_proxy_fcgi into trunk (and maybe 2.2...)
On 4/19/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think that the Proxy FastCGI module is at a point where we should consider folding it into trunk, with the hope of it being backported to 2.2.x and some not-too-distant future. Since everyone seems to be in favor of merging it I went ahead and did it, see r396063 for details. -garrett
Re: Fold mod_proxy_fcgi into trunk (and maybe 2.2...)
On 4/19/06, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 19 April 2006 16:06, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > +1 on merging to trunk, +0 on 2.2.x. I'd love to see someone actually > > > using it for something real before it goes into any release, and at > > > this point I'm not sure it has... > > > > Hence my desire to get it into a branch that people are actively > > playing with :) > > So release it as a standalone module for 2.2 that builds cleanly - > like for example mod_mbox? > > That way people get to use it before it goes into the main product. > And they will, 'cos fastcgi is popular:-) Once the FAQs that generates > are dealt with is the time to contemplate backporting to 2.2 itself. For the current mod_proxy_fcgi that's probably possible, but the next round of changes will likely require modification to mod_proxy itself, which throws that idea out the window. -garrett
Re: Fold mod_proxy_fcgi into trunk (and maybe 2.2...)
On 4/19/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 11:06:56AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > +1 on merging to trunk, +0 on 2.2.x. I'd love to see someone actually > > > using it for something real before it goes into any release, and at > > > this point I'm not sure it has... > > > > Hence my desire to get it into a branch that people are actively > > playing with :) > > Would an alpha 2.3 release solve that problem? Sure, assuming we actually merge it to trunk ;-) -garrett
Re: Fold mod_proxy_fcgi into trunk (and maybe 2.2...)
Nick Kew wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 April 2006 16:06, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > +1 on merging to trunk, +0 on 2.2.x. I'd love to see someone actually > > > using it for something real before it goes into any release, and at > > > this point I'm not sure it has... > > > > Hence my desire to get it into a branch that people are actively > > playing with :) > > So release it as a standalone module for 2.2 that builds cleanly - > like for example mod_mbox? > I'm looking for exposure mostly... I don't think that would quite do it :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
Re: Fold mod_proxy_fcgi into trunk (and maybe 2.2...)
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 16:06, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > +1 on merging to trunk, +0 on 2.2.x. I'd love to see someone actually > > using it for something real before it goes into any release, and at > > this point I'm not sure it has... > > Hence my desire to get it into a branch that people are actively > playing with :) So release it as a standalone module for 2.2 that builds cleanly - like for example mod_mbox? That way people get to use it before it goes into the main product. And they will, 'cos fastcgi is popular:-) Once the FAQs that generates are dealt with is the time to contemplate backporting to 2.2 itself. -- Nick Kew
Re: Fold mod_proxy_fcgi into trunk (and maybe 2.2...)
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 11:06:56AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > +1 on merging to trunk, +0 on 2.2.x. I'd love to see someone actually > > using it for something real before it goes into any release, and at > > this point I'm not sure it has... > > Hence my desire to get it into a branch that people are actively > playing with :) Would an alpha 2.3 release solve that problem? -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fold mod_proxy_fcgi into trunk (and maybe 2.2...)
Garrett Rooney wrote: > > On 4/19/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that the Proxy FastCGI module is at a point where > > we should consider folding it into trunk, with the hope > > of it being backported to 2.2.x and some not-too-distant > > future. > > > > Comments? > > +1 on merging to trunk, +0 on 2.2.x. I'd love to see someone actually > using it for something real before it goes into any release, and at > this point I'm not sure it has... Hence my desire to get it into a branch that people are actively playing with :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
Re: Fold mod_proxy_fcgi into trunk (and maybe 2.2...)
On 4/19/06, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF EITO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > > Von: Jim Jagielski > > > > > > I think that the Proxy FastCGI module is at a point where > > we should consider folding it into trunk, with the hope > > of it being backported to 2.2.x and some not-too-distant > > future. > > > > Comments? > > > > Questions: > > I am a lazy guy :-). > Would it be possible for you to provide the changes as a diff that > need to be applied to the *existing* sources on the trunk? > This would help to understand what changes in the existing files as a > result of this merge. The diff for existing files is very small. Just the build changes to build the new code and a tweak to mod_proxy_balancer if I recall correctly. Just doing a diff between the revision we created the branch in and the tip of the branch should give it to you. > Are there any test cases for the test framework to check the FastCGI module? At the moment no, although contributions of them would be more than welcome. -garrett
Re: Fold mod_proxy_fcgi into trunk (and maybe 2.2...)
On 4/19/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that the Proxy FastCGI module is at a point where > we should consider folding it into trunk, with the hope > of it being backported to 2.2.x and some not-too-distant > future. > > Comments? +1 on merging to trunk, +0 on 2.2.x. I'd love to see someone actually using it for something real before it goes into any release, and at this point I'm not sure it has... -garrett
