When do you think you will be open sourcing the plugin? -Bryan
> On Apr 24, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org > <mailto:zw...@apache.org>> wrote: > > >> On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org >> <mailto:sor...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:18 AM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org >> <mailto:zw...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >>> >>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org >>>> <mailto:zw...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Below is a list of currently “experimental” plugins. We should decide >>> which, if any, of these should be moved to a stable state. Once stable, >>> incompatible changes within a major release would not be accepted. Being >>> stable also means that we expect it to be fully maintained and supported. >>>> >>>> Please discuss and suggest which of these should be promoted to stable. >>>> >>>> — Leif >>> >>> These are the two I personally think we should seriously consider >>> promoting. I use them daily, and I think they are generally used and useful >>> as well: >>> >>>> >>>> authproxy/ >>>> background_fetch/ >>> >>> >>> >>> — Leif >>> >>> >> I'd like to nominate regex_revalidate, remap_stats, and url_sig. > > > I’m a little bit on the edge with url_sig. We’re working on a plugin that > implements the CDNI Signed URL spec, which I think is a nicer way to go > forward. The specs from CDNI would not allow the “bit-field” features that > url_sig has (yet at least). But I’d encourage people to look at the CDNI spec > over e.g. url_sig or other custom made URL signing protocols. > > That much said, I’m merely -0 on promoting url_sig to stable, i.e. I’d prefer > to see it deprecated over time, but I don’t care strongly. > > The CDNI specs are at > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-03 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-03>. > > Cheers, > > — Leif > >
