apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [RFC] Network Abstraction Layer - redux
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:47:57 GMT
From: <rbb@covalent.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:41 PM


> I was under the impression that we had already decided, the last time this
> thread surfaced, that all of this was possible with filters.  We can
> redirect to different kinds of network primitives with a different "core"
> filter.  The "core" filters don't even need to use sockets, they can store
> their own communication medium in the conn_rec, and just use that.  The
> only drawback, is that Apache will still require a single socket to
> operate, but I am not sure that can't be worked around.  A REALLY QUICK
> grep through the source has us referencing the client socket 28 times
> directly from the conn_rec.  I am not convinced that some of those can't
> just be moved to inside a filter.
> 
> I guess I am asking what this is supposed to accomplish.

In all fairness,

APR does bucket brigades.  It does socket management.  I think this would be a fine
addition to our APR arsenal.

But can we, absolutely, postively, table any change that affects an httpd 2.0
release?  IOW, no samba-team iol into Apache 2.0.  Develop the API, impement the
code, go to town.  But I think we've reached a juncture...

    not everything in apr exists for or is even used by Apache

If what results can improve httpd 2.1, then fantastic!  If not, it's still fantastic :-)
There's alot more to do on the net beyond Apache, if we can fuel those directions, then
we really have a worthwhile library project, and not just an adjunct of httpd.

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> 
> > Missed this thread earlier.  I am quite interested in this proposal.  It is similar
to
> > Dean Gaudet's iol work in early Apache 2.0 and is pretty much in line with what
I was
> > needing/thinking as well.  Any interest in reviving this?  The implementation should
be
> > quite straightforward. I'll start working on pieces if there is general agreement
this is
> > a good thing to do (I think it is).
> >
> > From: "Sander Striker" <striker@samba-tng.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 6:47 AM
> >
> > > It looks all very promissing and that's why we want to contribute
> > > some ideas to (from our point of view) improve the APR. The first
> > > thing we are going to need is a higher level of abstraction for
> > > the network layer. We have a complicated (to explain to outsiders)
> > > protocol stack in which protocols can be called upon from several
> > > layers.



Mime
View raw message