Re: squid3 comments

On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 13:27 +0200, Tsantilas Christos wrote:
> In the other hand I need a proxy with an icap client because I spent
> time (and continue spending) to an icap related project. Squid3 has a
> good icap client. The first problem someones can see in squid3 is that
> there are some parts derived from c-code, which are not (fully)
> converted to real c++ code. The second is a feeling that some parts of
> code are half-completed. I am thinking that maybe it is good practice
> for someone to start fixing this things first....

I agree that many Squid3 parts should be fixed, polished, or thrown
away. However, I think that we should focus on making Squid3 stable
first, and the performance/polishing work you are discussing should be
done for v3.1. There are plenty of users who can use Squid3 that is
stable but not very fast.

> An alternate for me is to try fix the bugs and rewrite some of the
> icap-related parts of the squid26-icap branch. I don't know ....

This would be a bad idea from my biased point of view. While the code
migration to Squid3 was poorly done, we are already at the point where
we can make Squid3 work for your purposes instead of going back. Please
do not forget that Squid2 has its own problems; it is not like you will
be migrating to a great code that just needs a yet another ICAP patch!

Alex.
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 15:04:26 MST