Re: squid3 comments

On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 23:00 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Jeremy Hall wrote:
> > So are you saying those of us that need icap need to just wait?
>
> There's two parts.
>
> One: Alex is working on improvements to the ICAP code in Squid-3 which
> I hope will act as a kind of reference implementation to
> use in the future. Help him out any way you can.
>
> Two: I think the storework branch is one step along the right path
> to fixing up the codebase in the long term. The two things I need
> to sort it out is testing of the branch and some simple(!)ish test
> suite to implement tests of the client-side to make sure stuff isn't
> regressed as development continues. So some help dreaming up and coding
> up some test utilities to act as a test suite of the client side,
> along with some actual testing. No, its nowhere near ready to even
> sniff production traffic. :)

The point of my Squid3/ICAP work is to make Squid3 usable in a content
adaptation environment. I do not care much if ICAP code becomes a
reference implementation or not.

There are many parts. Some work on fixing Squid2 bugs, some work on
optimizing Squid2, some work on fixing Squid3 bugs, some work on Windows
port, etc.

If people want to help optimizing Squid2, it is their choice, of course.
Perhaps the "storework branch" will become a reference implementation to
speedup Squid3 when the time comes :-). I would prefer that folks spent
more energy on Squid 3.0 to make it stable faster (and only then
optimize Squid 3.1), but I am not going to call every project that is
not helping me "dead".

Alex.
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 15:27:54 MST