httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wilson <>
Subject Re: virtual host again
Date Wed, 26 Apr 1995 13:51:11 GMT
> I'm getting more and more frustrated trying to wedge stuff into
> a large program that was not well architected.  I think
> we need to start pondering building our own framework....
> The more I look at the code, the more I realize that this
> seemed like an experiment in writing a UNIX program, rather than
> something real :(  It's funny to see how the same thing is done in
> different ways (ie error_log is a FILE *, and xfer_log is a fd),
> come on...make up your mind :)  I also love how the traditional
> mode 0666 is not used as the third argument to open.  This
> means the process umask is not payed enough attention to, agh...
> Building the broken mode into a static variable, was well, kinda
> different...maybe a little learning about C was going on here
> too. :/

Not bad for a first try tho eh? ;)

> It's late, I'm very tired, and I've just had it with this code.
> You can add honey to shit, but you just get sweet tasting shit.
> No matter what you add to shit, you end up with some form of shit.
> I am not proud of the patches I need to do, but there is no clean
> easy was of integrating the junk.

Some time soon we'll need to talk a look at redesigning Apache
completely.  It's been growing organically and while individual
new components are well designed they *are* bolted on to a
rather mixed up program that could benefit from a comb and cut.

Rob M's mentioned a couple of times already that he'd have done it
all differently, if he'd known then what he knows now.  Unfortunately
a large-scale change to the structure of the basic server can't really
be done by a simple patch-review approach, it *really* needs a separate
initiative to design a generalised and useful structure which can
be made to accept each of the 'modules' Apache implements: logging,
content-neg, forking, multi-thread etc...

> Maybe I should not break my rule about waiting 24 hours to
> send a flame...nah...I'll probably regret this in the AM.
> Good night,

Sleep well.

> Cliff


View raw message