Costin Manolache wrote: > > I agree with libajp.so. > > I don't agree we need to develop new connector for apache2.0. > If we can't get it backported to 2.0 - then we can just > provide a separate build ( mod_proxy21 ). >
Sure, that's the one of solutions. > > that, and BTW I'm working on that together with Graham, but even he > > can not say for sure it's going to be in 2.0 branch. > > There is also a question of development infrastructure, cause we > > cannot use the httpd-cvs for that, so we'll need to make some > > compromises, writing few lines of code twice, and hope that > somone will apply the patch :). > > > We can very well put a copy of mod_proxy in our cvs while it > is experimental - and give Graham access. The module can be > tested/developed with both apache20 and 21. > I think I proposed something like too, and it is perhaps the most pragmatic approach. Only not sure if there are official distros with mod_proxy compiled in. In that case we'll need some namespace protection. We will still need my scoreboard patch back propagated to 2.0, so we can use lb without writing our own implementation. Graham, are you willing to become a j-t-c committer? MT,
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
