Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Fred Moyer]

Longer response here.

So I'm happy to be another active PMC member still involved. As
someone with a growing family, my time is limited, but not too much to
review and lend a +1 or feedback. I think that may be the case for a
few of the folks on this list. I'd like to see Steve Hay lead the
future of mod_perl project as I know a lot of the old guard have
personal duties now that take precedence.

mod_perl is not a new Apache project. It's approaching two decades,
close to the age of the Apache httpd project itself. It was a core
driver in developing my career in software, as well as many key
professional relationships associated there. I remember a *lot* of
weekends early in my career hacking on mod_perl for *fun* - the coding
was the reward, as well as the community feedback.

There are still many shops out there using mod_perl, but not much new
development, which makes sense. The project is in maintenance mode,
and there are developers willing to support needed releases as Adam
mentioned. If you are developing a new project, you should not use
mod_perl. But if you are maintaining legacy mod_perl infrastructure,
we will not leave you behind.

The open source project model has changed significantly, especially
over the last ten years. IMHO, while the ASF model was instrumental in
the rise of open source projects into commercial environments, more
recent approaches such as those supported by the Linux Foundation
(which is *definitely* more commercially supported, and reflected by
the platitude of industry sponsors and resources) have achieved
greater growth levels in the short term. Will they still be here in 20
years? No idea.

A takeaway from my reflections there is that the ASF can benefit from
a bit less formality in structure to keep up with the new kids on the
block. I'm just a mostly inactive PMC member, but I think it's clear
that the project rules are preventing us keeping up with the needed
leadership changes.

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:02 PM Fred Moyer  wrote:
>
> Happy to continue being a maintainer. Longer response coming soon :)
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 7:39 PM Adam Prime  wrote:
>>
>> I think if you want to discuss alternatives, then a new thread would be
>> the place to do that.
>>
>> With regards to plug being pulled, I think that it is up to the
>> community if, when, and how that happens. That's what the point of this
>> thread is. If there aren't people that are committed enough to the
>> project for whatever reason to step up and keep it from going to the
>> attic, then that's what will happen.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/17/2021 9:50 PM, Jim Albert wrote:
>> > Not that I want to be the guy that says it sounds like we'll be pulling
>> > the mod_perl plug at any time the right scenario arises, but is it
>> > reasonable to have a discussion here on mod_perl alternatives inline
>> > with the various means of using mod_perl from the low level means of
>> > interfacing with the Apache server to the quick and dirty stuff
>> > (ModPerl::PerlRun, I believe to keep Perl and modules in memory).
>> >
>> > For those drawing the same conclusions from this thread as me, I've seen
>> > mod_fcgid proposed as an alternative, but I haven't yet played with it.
>> > Anyone with similar thoughts would ideally be looking for something that
>> > doesn't require months of redeveloping to a proposed replacement to
>> > mod_perl.
>> >
>> > I like mod_perl and it does a good job for what I use it for, but if we
>> > have no one developing, it sounds like we're waiting for the catalyst to
>> > come along that puts and end to it. EG.. some future Apache
>> > incompatibility.  I'd really like someone with mod_perl authority to
>> > tell me I'm wrong, but my take on Adam's reply pretty much leaves me
>> > with that conclusion. I don't see another way to draw a better conclusion.
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Adam Prime]

I didn't say there are no developers, I said there is no active 
development happening. Steve Hay is a developer. Fred Moyer, who replied 
to this thread earlier this evening, has also made significant 
contributions to the project. I can dive into the C if I have to, to fix 
bugs or review code, but I'm likely not going to have the time or skills 
to make significant changes should they be required.


When significant bugs come up within mod_perl developers from httpd 
project may also get brought in. That's what happened last time anyway 
(https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-2767)


Adam

On 3/17/2021 11:46 PM, Jim Albert wrote:

Sure... I'll start a new thread after I reply here.

I don't know about how apache projects are maintained and the logistics, 
but there are two issues here.
Foremost... from your previous response you need a few people to step up 
and file your described report indicating no new releases, but that's 
not necessarily a developer and it doesn't sound involved. I expect 
you'll get some volunteers.


However, aside from that is the bigger issue of you stated there are no 
developers maintaining mod_perl. That's the big red flag in this. Should 
some vulnerability be discovered or a future Apache release present some 
compatibility issue... maybe someone steps up and provides a fix... 
that's a big maybe.


Jim

mod_perl alternatives

[Jim Albert]

Given the recent discussion on the need for mod_perl PMC members and the 
disclosure that there is no active development on mod_perl this seems 
like an appropriate time to start a thread on a discussion of mod_perl 
alternatives inline with the various means of using mod_perl from the 
low level use of interfacing with the Apache server to the quick and 
dirty stuff (ModPerl::PerlRun, I believe to keep Perl and modules in 
memory).


I've seen mod_fcgid proposed in posts on other forums. Has anyone played 
with alternatives? I expect the low level Apache interaction might be 
difficult to duplicate at least to continue to do so in Perl. Perhaps 
the ModPerl::PerlRun approach of keeping Perl and modules in memory is a 
potential starting point for discussion for those using mod_perl at the 
most basic level.


Jim

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Jim Albert]

Sure... I'll start a new thread after I reply here.

I don't know about how apache projects are maintained and the logistics, 
but there are two issues here.
Foremost... from your previous response you need a few people to step up 
and file your described report indicating no new releases, but that's 
not necessarily a developer and it doesn't sound involved. I expect 
you'll get some volunteers.


However, aside from that is the bigger issue of you stated there are no 
developers maintaining mod_perl. That's the big red flag in this. Should 
some vulnerability be discovered or a future Apache release present some 
compatibility issue... maybe someone steps up and provides a fix... 
that's a big maybe.


Jim

On 3/17/2021 10:39 PM, Adam Prime wrote:
I think if you want to discuss alternatives, then a new thread would 
be the place to do that.


With regards to plug being pulled, I think that it is up to the 
community if, when, and how that happens. That's what the point of 
this thread is. If there aren't people that are committed enough to 
the project for whatever reason to step up and keep it from going to 
the attic, then that's what will happen.


Adam



On 3/17/2021 9:50 PM, Jim Albert wrote:
Not that I want to be the guy that says it sounds like we'll be 
pulling the mod_perl plug at any time the right scenario arises, but 
is it reasonable to have a discussion here on mod_perl alternatives 
inline with the various means of using mod_perl from the low level 
means of interfacing with the Apache server to the quick and dirty 
stuff (ModPerl::PerlRun, I believe to keep Perl and modules in memory).


For those drawing the same conclusions from this thread as me, I've 
seen mod_fcgid proposed as an alternative, but I haven't yet played 
with it. Anyone with similar thoughts would ideally be looking for 
something that doesn't require months of redeveloping to a proposed 
replacement to mod_perl.


I like mod_perl and it does a good job for what I use it for, but if 
we have no one developing, it sounds like we're waiting for the 
catalyst to come along that puts and end to it. EG.. some future 
Apache incompatibility.  I'd really like someone with mod_perl 
authority to tell me I'm wrong, but my take on Adam's reply pretty 
much leaves me with that conclusion. I don't see another way to draw 
a better conclusion.


Jim

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Fred Moyer]

Happy to continue being a maintainer. Longer response coming soon :)

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 7:39 PM Adam Prime  wrote:

> I think if you want to discuss alternatives, then a new thread would be
> the place to do that.
>
> With regards to plug being pulled, I think that it is up to the
> community if, when, and how that happens. That's what the point of this
> thread is. If there aren't people that are committed enough to the
> project for whatever reason to step up and keep it from going to the
> attic, then that's what will happen.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On 3/17/2021 9:50 PM, Jim Albert wrote:
> > Not that I want to be the guy that says it sounds like we'll be pulling
> > the mod_perl plug at any time the right scenario arises, but is it
> > reasonable to have a discussion here on mod_perl alternatives inline
> > with the various means of using mod_perl from the low level means of
> > interfacing with the Apache server to the quick and dirty stuff
> > (ModPerl::PerlRun, I believe to keep Perl and modules in memory).
> >
> > For those drawing the same conclusions from this thread as me, I've seen
> > mod_fcgid proposed as an alternative, but I haven't yet played with it.
> > Anyone with similar thoughts would ideally be looking for something that
> > doesn't require months of redeveloping to a proposed replacement to
> > mod_perl.
> >
> > I like mod_perl and it does a good job for what I use it for, but if we
> > have no one developing, it sounds like we're waiting for the catalyst to
> > come along that puts and end to it. EG.. some future Apache
> > incompatibility.  I'd really like someone with mod_perl authority to
> > tell me I'm wrong, but my take on Adam's reply pretty much leaves me
> > with that conclusion. I don't see another way to draw a better
> conclusion.
> >
> > Jim
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Adam Prime]

I think if you want to discuss alternatives, then a new thread would be 
the place to do that.


With regards to plug being pulled, I think that it is up to the 
community if, when, and how that happens. That's what the point of this 
thread is. If there aren't people that are committed enough to the 
project for whatever reason to step up and keep it from going to the 
attic, then that's what will happen.


Adam



On 3/17/2021 9:50 PM, Jim Albert wrote:
Not that I want to be the guy that says it sounds like we'll be pulling 
the mod_perl plug at any time the right scenario arises, but is it 
reasonable to have a discussion here on mod_perl alternatives inline 
with the various means of using mod_perl from the low level means of 
interfacing with the Apache server to the quick and dirty stuff 
(ModPerl::PerlRun, I believe to keep Perl and modules in memory).


For those drawing the same conclusions from this thread as me, I've seen 
mod_fcgid proposed as an alternative, but I haven't yet played with it. 
Anyone with similar thoughts would ideally be looking for something that 
doesn't require months of redeveloping to a proposed replacement to 
mod_perl.


I like mod_perl and it does a good job for what I use it for, but if we 
have no one developing, it sounds like we're waiting for the catalyst to 
come along that puts and end to it. EG.. some future Apache 
incompatibility.  I'd really like someone with mod_perl authority to 
tell me I'm wrong, but my take on Adam's reply pretty much leaves me 
with that conclusion. I don't see another way to draw a better conclusion.


Jim

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Jim Albert]

Not that I want to be the guy that says it sounds like we'll be pulling 
the mod_perl plug at any time the right scenario arises, but is it 
reasonable to have a discussion here on mod_perl alternatives inline 
with the various means of using mod_perl from the low level means of 
interfacing with the Apache server to the quick and dirty stuff 
(ModPerl::PerlRun, I believe to keep Perl and modules in memory).


For those drawing the same conclusions from this thread as me, I've seen 
mod_fcgid proposed as an alternative, but I haven't yet played with it. 
Anyone with similar thoughts would ideally be looking for something that 
doesn't require months of redeveloping to a proposed replacement to 
mod_perl.


I like mod_perl and it does a good job for what I use it for, but if we 
have no one developing, it sounds like we're waiting for the catalyst to 
come along that puts and end to it. EG.. some future Apache 
incompatibility.  I'd really like someone with mod_perl authority to 
tell me I'm wrong, but my take on Adam's reply pretty much leaves me 
with that conclusion. I don't see another way to draw a better conclusion.


Jim

On 3/17/2021 8:52 PM, Adam Prime wrote:
The projects current state is that no new development happening. This 
isn't to say that new development shouldn't happen, but it isn't. 
Apache and Perl both continue to move forward, and we are pretty lucky 
that the design that Stas, Phillipe, Geoff, etc built mod_perl 2 under 
is resilient enough to continue to despite the changes that both of 
these projects have made.


So, if the goal of the PMC is to maintain the status quo, then there 
is essentially no time required, aside from someone needing to file a 
report every few months saying that nothing has happened, and there 
were no releases. Things can only remain that way as long as there are 
no security problems that affect mod_perl, and neither Apache or Perl 
do anything that really breaks mod_perl.


Adam

On 3/17/2021 6:10 PM, Geoff Mottram wrote:

All,

I would certainly hate to see mod_perl no longer being maintained. I 
use it as a front-end for a library cataloging system that is very 
much alive, in-use and updated with recent HTML, CSS and JavaScript 
features. Rewriting this front-end in some other language would be a 
huge undertaking and would not provide much benefit because Apache + 
Perl + mod_perl not only do the job but do it extremely well.


While I don't understand what type of time commitment would be 
required, I would be happy to add my name to the bottom of any list 
should others have a strong desire to hold such a position.


Best,

Geoff Mottram

On 3/17/2021 3:40 PM, Sander Striker wrote:

Dear community members,

As projects mature, they will naturally reach a point where activity 
reduces to a level such that the project is no longer sustainable.  
At Apache, projects reach this stage when there are not at least 3 
active PMC members providing oversight. Projects that reach this 
stage are usually placed in the Attic [1] or absorbed by another 
Apache project willing to manage its releases.


If you are interested in seeing mod_perl remain an active project, 
and are able to help maintain and provide oversight, please respond 
in this thread indicating that you are interested in performing the 
duties of a PMC member[2].


Cheers,

Sander Striker
Director, The Apache Software Foundation

[1] https://attic.apache.org/ 
[2] https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html 





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@perl.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Adam Prime]

The projects current state is that no new development happening. This 
isn't to say that new development shouldn't happen, but it isn't. Apache 
and Perl both continue to move forward, and we are pretty lucky that the 
design that Stas, Phillipe, Geoff, etc built mod_perl 2 under is 
resilient enough to continue to despite the changes that both of these 
projects have made.


So, if the goal of the PMC is to maintain the status quo, then there is 
essentially no time required, aside from someone needing to file a 
report every few months saying that nothing has happened, and there were 
no releases. Things can only remain that way as long as there are no 
security problems that affect mod_perl, and neither Apache or Perl do 
anything that really breaks mod_perl.


Adam

On 3/17/2021 6:10 PM, Geoff Mottram wrote:

All,

I would certainly hate to see mod_perl no longer being maintained. I use 
it as a front-end for a library cataloging system that is very much 
alive, in-use and updated with recent HTML, CSS and JavaScript features. 
Rewriting this front-end in some other language would be a huge 
undertaking and would not provide much benefit because Apache + Perl + 
mod_perl not only do the job but do it extremely well.


While I don't understand what type of time commitment would be required, 
I would be happy to add my name to the bottom of any list should others 
have a strong desire to hold such a position.


Best,

Geoff Mottram

On 3/17/2021 3:40 PM, Sander Striker wrote:

Dear community members,

As projects mature, they will naturally reach a point where activity 
reduces to a level such that the project is no longer sustainable.  At 
Apache, projects reach this stage when there are not at least 3 active 
PMC members providing oversight. Projects that reach this stage are 
usually placed in the Attic [1] or absorbed by another Apache project 
willing to manage its releases.


If you are interested in seeing mod_perl remain an active project, and 
are able to help maintain and provide oversight, please respond in 
this thread indicating that you are interested in performing the 
duties of a PMC member[2].


Cheers,

Sander Striker
Director, The Apache Software Foundation

[1] https://attic.apache.org/ 
[2] https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html 





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@perl.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Adam Prime]

When the roll call was done a month ago it's basically myself and Steve, 
with Steve really being the only one that has much knowledge of the guts 
of the project. Up until the last few months gozer (Phillippe Chaisson) 
was at least around enough to file reports, but has been MIA a few 
months. Some of the remainder of PMC list from the website are likely 
still at least subbed to lists, but are for all intents and purposes 
completely MIA or possibly formally retired from the project.


Adam

On 3/17/2021 6:52 PM, dc...@prosentient.com.au wrote:


I am not interested in performing those duties but could you clarify 
how many active PMC members there are currently? It looks like the 
list at https://perl.apache.org/about/pmc.html 
 is over 7 years out of date. 
It’s unclear how up-to-date the list at 
https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?perl 
 is as well.


David Cook

Software Engineer

Prosentient Systems

Suite 7.03

6a Glen St

Milsons Point NSW 2061

Australia

Office: 02 9212 0899

Online: 02 8005 0595

*From:*Sander Striker 
*Sent:* Thursday, 18 March 2021 6:41 AM
*To:* d...@perl.apache.org; modperl@perl.apache.org
*Subject:* [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

Dear community members,

As projects mature, they will naturally reach a point where activity 
reduces to a level such that the project is no longer sustainable.  At 
Apache, projects reach this stage when there are not at least 3 active 
PMC members providing oversight. Projects that reach this stage are 
usually placed in the Attic [1] or absorbed by another Apache project 
willing to manage its releases.


If you are interested in seeing mod_perl remain an active project, and 
are able to help maintain and provide oversight, please respond in 
this thread indicating that you are interested in performing the 
duties of a PMC member[2].



Cheers,

Sander Striker
Director, The Apache Software Foundation

[1] https://attic.apache.org/ 

[2] https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html 

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Steve Hay]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 19:40, Sander Striker  wrote:
>
> Dear community members,
>
> As projects mature, they will naturally reach a point where activity reduces 
> to a level such that the project is no longer sustainable.  At Apache, 
> projects reach this stage when there are not at least 3 active PMC members 
> providing oversight. Projects that reach this stage are usually placed in the 
> Attic [1] or absorbed by another Apache project willing to manage its 
> releases.
>
> If you are interested in seeing mod_perl remain an active project, and are 
> able to help maintain and provide oversight, please respond in this thread 
> indicating that you are interested in performing the duties of a PMC 
> member[2].
>

I confirm again that I am still here and willing to participate and
sustain oversight of mod_perl as required.

RE: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[dcook]

I am not interested in performing those duties but could you clarify how many 
active PMC members there are currently? It looks like the list at 
https://perl.apache.org/about/pmc.html is over 7 years out of date. It’s 
unclear how up-to-date the list at 
https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?perl is as well. 

 

David Cook

Software Engineer

Prosentient Systems

Suite 7.03

6a Glen St

Milsons Point NSW 2061

Australia

 

Office: 02 9212 0899

Online: 02 8005 0595

 

From: Sander Striker  
Sent: Thursday, 18 March 2021 6:41 AM
To: d...@perl.apache.org; modperl@perl.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

 

Dear community members,

As projects mature, they will naturally reach a point where activity reduces to 
a level such that the project is no longer sustainable.  At Apache, projects 
reach this stage when there are not at least 3 active PMC members providing 
oversight. Projects that reach this stage are usually placed in the Attic [1] 
or absorbed by another Apache project willing to manage its releases.

If you are interested in seeing mod_perl remain an active project, and are able 
to help maintain and provide oversight, please respond in this thread 
indicating that you are interested in performing the duties of a PMC member[2].


Cheers,

Sander Striker
Director, The Apache Software Foundation

 

[1] https://attic.apache.org/

[2] https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html

 

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Edward J. Sabol]

On Mar 17, 2021, at 3:40 PM, Sander Striker  wrote:
> If you are interested in seeing mod_perl remain an active project, and are 
> able to help maintain and provide oversight, please respond in this thread 
> indicating that you are interested in performing the duties of a PMC 
> member[2].

I am, but I'm not currently a committer, fwiw.

https://github.com/esabol

Regards,
Ed

[DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

[Sander Striker]

Dear community members,

As projects mature, they will naturally reach a point where activity
reduces to a level such that the project is no longer sustainable.  At
Apache, projects reach this stage when there are not at least 3 active PMC
members providing oversight. Projects that reach this stage are usually
placed in the Attic [1] or absorbed by another Apache project willing to
manage its releases.

If you are interested in seeing mod_perl remain an active project, and are
able to help maintain and provide oversight, please respond in this thread
indicating that you are interested in performing the duties of a PMC
member[2].

Cheers,

Sander Striker
Director, The Apache Software Foundation

[1] https://attic.apache.org/
[2] https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html