Re: [squid-users] squid 2.7 vs 3.x (was: Re: [squid-users] squid-2.7 pre-release testing)

On Sat, Jan 12, 2008, Marcus Kool wrote:

> I tried the FAQ and Squid website for some more info but I found none.
> The RoadMap2 and RoadMap3 are a bit vague to draw any conclusions.

Thats because we're developers, not documentation authors. :)

> Can you be more elaborate ? What are the major differences between
> 3.x and 2.7 ?

3.x: has some internal code restructuring, is a C/C++ hybrid, includes
     integrated ICAP support; Amos has ipv6 support included in 3.HEAD.

2.x: functional cyclic filesystem (COSS), some of my recent work
     (store URL rewriting to allow CDN type content to be cached with
     appropriate administrator intervention; my logging helper framework
     to make logging lightweight again and allow other logging destinations
     to be easily written, like UDP, MySQL, etc), performance improvements,
     HTTP/1.1 compliance improvements.

I've promised the squid-3 developers that I wouldn't make my Squid-3
complaints public anymore. Suffice to say, I don't really agree with the
direction or the implementation of Squid-3 and I got sick of waiting.

I'm going to focus my attentions to modifying the Squid-2 codebase to be
what I think it should've looked like before we tried the "great C++
experiment". That includes how features are tested and developed, how
often minor releases are, well, released, and concentrating on code
restructuring and improvements.

If this becomes too confusing for users, and this may be the case, then
I might have to spin it off as a new project. I'd rather not do this,
but I'm not sure how to get it across that Squid-2 is and will be
actively developed.

If you follow the blog then you'll find articles from Amos and I talking
about what we've been working on in Squid-2 and Squid-3. I'd like it if
the other project participants chimed in too, but not everyone feels up
to writing articles on what they're doing. :)

Adrian
Received on Sat Jan 12 2008 - 17:43:26 MST