apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] apr-client
Date Thu, 27 Sep 2001 07:04:20 GMT
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 11:43:33PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>...
> Think _lightweight_ guys ... if this gets unmanageable, it might need to
> become it's own project.

I think lightweight in terms of "HTTP and its extensions (HTTPS, DAV, etc)"
*only*.

Once you move into other protocols, then the whole concept falls apart.
Consider FTP: it requires *two* connections, and sometimes a *listener*.
That is just Way Too Different.

No... *just* HTTP in my book. The things a client will do: proxy, auth, ??
And using our bucket/brigade design for efficiency, and using filters for
code clarity / modularization.

> And I agree with the assertion that APR = Portability Runtime,
> APR-UTIL = Portable Runtime Utilities.  We can extend that just as long
> as we remember that APR (primary) never contains anything except portability,

Agreed.

> and APR-UTIL shouldn't grow in -huge- chunks (if it exceeds 10k lines of code,
> it probably warrents it's own codebase.)
> 
> Sure sounds like apr-client could fit the bill.

Agreed on both counts. Neon 0.15.3 is around 12 kloc. Removing duplication
with existing APR(UTIL) stuff, I figure that we could implement similar
functionality in about 7 kloc.

But we also have some advantages to start with: from scratch with lots of
prior work to learn from (what is good, what is bad), and lots of code to
steal from proxy, flood, and httpd.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message