Re: squid3 comments

>>> Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> 02/27/07 9:25 AM >>>
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Jeremy Hall wrote:

> Let me second this. When you start asking questions about squid3
and
> its stability, you get anything from "it's stable" to "not for prime
> time" and when you ask questions about using it in a production
> environment, most shy away from that.

* noone's really stepped up to drag Squid-3 up to production quality.
  The bugs are relatively well-known and the issues with the codebase
  show up in bugzilla.

* People seem to think we can keep adding functionality without fixing
  the Squid core. Which is a mess, and in my opinion, needs to be
fixed
  first.

> but I need ICAP support and proposals like this, although valid,
scare
> me a little. (rewriting the client side code from scratch, not
putting
> icap in 2.6)
>
> I don't have the time to go digging on 2.6 to make icap work better,
so
> if you have some spare cycles it would be greatly appreciated.

I won't make icap better in squid-2.6. I want to fix the squid core so
it can better support stuff like ICAP without needing to be a patch
against the current codebase. I thought Squid-3 would bring this but
it just hasn't.

I think we are on the same page for end-term goals, but what would you
recommend I do for today? Squid-3 is still a moving target.

Every time I try to fix or add something interesting to Squid I keep
hitting the same brick wall - the code is overly complicated for what
it
does.

yes I agree with that.

We need to spend time fixing the Squid internals and getting all of
that
fast, flexible and rock stable so stuff like ICAP can be implemented
better.

So are you saying those of us that need icap need to just wait?

_J

Adrian
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 07:41:01 MST