Re: mod_replace and mod_random

On 11/3/25 5:54 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 11:49 AM Emmanuel Dreyfus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 05:38:29PM +0100, Christian Folini via dev wrote:
>>> Before Pierre sets up to do a lot of work on this, could some of the
>>> greybards here weigh in on the chance that such an extension to
>>> mod_unique_id would actually have a chance of being accepted?
>>
>> Some beards are even white now! :-)
>>
>> Another way to ask: anyone dislikes the idea?
> 
> I think it's reasonable as long as it's off by default (as it seems to
> be in the standalone module from the pseudo-doc).
> 

I would like to see a broader discussion first (in the sense of more people offering their opinion)
on the approach:

Do we want to add this additional functionality as separate modules or do we want to integrate it into existing modules?

Pro for separate modules:

- They are already designed. Integration would require additional work.
- We have multiple cases already in the server where different modules do similar things or where you can get
  similar effects using different modules.
- Follow a Unix approach to have modules that focus on a particular use case and do it well.

Pro for integrated modules:

- We have multiple cases already in the server where different modules do similar things or where you can get
  similar effects using different modules. This can confuse users and sometimes makes things harder to understand.
  We should not continue this path.

- Multiple modules doing similar things can be confusing and users may not know which module to use for which purpose.


Regards

Rüdiger