httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe+apa...@sunstarsys.com>
Subject Re: cvs tagged as v1_1 (was Re: 1.1_rc4)
Date Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:21:01 GMT
Eli Marmor <marmor@netmask.it> writes:

> Joe Schaefer wrote:

[...]

> > So, do it for *our* users instead.  At the very least it would
> > lead to a nice set of unit tests for apreq-2, since you'll have
> > to write those to prove it actually works.  And if it does work,
> > it will definitely go into *our* distribution.
> 
> Relax ;-)
> *IF* I do it (spare time matters...), I will do it neither for them
> NOR for our users, but for me (well, I guess that my own benefit will
> be very minor in comparison with the benefit of all the users, but it
> is enough to justify such an effort).

Of course.  But what I'm trying to express to you is this:

     If you're arguing for a redesign of apreq, it is no longer
     compelling to say things like "do it this way, so project-X
     will incorporate it into their distribution".  BTDTGTTS.

     The case you need to make *here* is that such changes
     would benefit the apreq-2 distribution itself, because 
     that's what *our* users will care about.

You could make a great start at that by just designing an
abstract environment for apreq_cookies to live in.  You basically
just need to develop abstractions for "bake" and "parse".  What
I would suggest is adding an "env" vtable to apreq_cookie:

  struct apreq_cookie_env_t {
        /* apreq_cookie to server header vtable */

        /* some function pointers */
        *parse;
        *bake;

        /* maybe a pool, etc */
  }

> I developed a layer that emulates the basic functionality of the
> filters, so simple modules can be tested/profiled standalone, without
> being attached to Apache (it is very ugly and works only with limited
> modules, so I'm afraid to publish source code...).

Very cool- keep it handy so we can bang on it here (eventually).

[...]

> In any case, I don't do anything before having a more up-to-date
> version of apreq-2 (my current one is from August).

OK.

-- 
Joe Schaefer

Mime
View raw message