Re: [DISCUSS] The future of mod_perl

Isnt it interesting to know how many, happy, users modperl has?

Michel

> Op 18 mrt. 2021 om 06:07 heeft Fred Moyer <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Longer response here.
> 
> So I'm happy to be another active PMC member still involved. As
> someone with a growing family, my time is limited, but not too much to
> review and lend a +1 or feedback. I think that may be the case for a
> few of the folks on this list. I'd like to see Steve Hay lead the
> future of mod_perl project as I know a lot of the old guard have
> personal duties now that take precedence.
> 
> mod_perl is not a new Apache project. It's approaching two decades,
> close to the age of the Apache httpd project itself. It was a core
> driver in developing my career in software, as well as many key
> professional relationships associated there. I remember a *lot* of
> weekends early in my career hacking on mod_perl for *fun* - the coding
> was the reward, as well as the community feedback.
> 
> There are still many shops out there using mod_perl, but not much new
> development, which makes sense. The project is in maintenance mode,
> and there are developers willing to support needed releases as Adam
> mentioned. If you are developing a new project, you should not use
> mod_perl. But if you are maintaining legacy mod_perl infrastructure,
> we will not leave you behind.
> 
> The open source project model has changed significantly, especially
> over the last ten years. IMHO, while the ASF model was instrumental in
> the rise of open source projects into commercial environments, more
> recent approaches such as those supported by the Linux Foundation
> (which is *definitely* more commercially supported, and reflected by
> the platitude of industry sponsors and resources) have achieved
> greater growth levels in the short term. Will they still be here in 20
> years? No idea.
> 
> A takeaway from my reflections there is that the ASF can benefit from
> a bit less formality in structure to keep up with the new kids on the
> block. I'm just a mostly inactive PMC member, but I think it's clear
> that the project rules are preventing us keeping up with the needed
> leadership changes.
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:02 PM Fred Moyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Happy to continue being a maintainer. Longer response coming soon :)
>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 7:39 PM Adam Prime <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think if you want to discuss alternatives, then a new thread would be
>>> the place to do that.
>>> 
>>> With regards to plug being pulled, I think that it is up to the
>>> community if, when, and how that happens. That's what the point of this
>>> thread is. If there aren't people that are committed enough to the
>>> project for whatever reason to step up and keep it from going to the
>>> attic, then that's what will happen.
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3/17/2021 9:50 PM, Jim Albert wrote:
>>>> Not that I want to be the guy that says it sounds like we'll be pulling
>>>> the mod_perl plug at any time the right scenario arises, but is it
>>>> reasonable to have a discussion here on mod_perl alternatives inline
>>>> with the various means of using mod_perl from the low level means of
>>>> interfacing with the Apache server to the quick and dirty stuff
>>>> (ModPerl::PerlRun, I believe to keep Perl and modules in memory).
>>>> 
>>>> For those drawing the same conclusions from this thread as me, I've seen
>>>> mod_fcgid proposed as an alternative, but I haven't yet played with it.
>>>> Anyone with similar thoughts would ideally be looking for something that
>>>> doesn't require months of redeveloping to a proposed replacement to
>>>> mod_perl.
>>>> 
>>>> I like mod_perl and it does a good job for what I use it for, but if we
>>>> have no one developing, it sounds like we're waiting for the catalyst to
>>>> come along that puts and end to it. EG.. some future Apache
>>>> incompatibility.  I'd really like someone with mod_perl authority to
>>>> tell me I'm wrong, but my take on Adam's reply pretty much leaves me
>>>> with that conclusion. I don't see another way to draw a better conclusion.
>>>> 
>>>> Jim
>>>>