httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Hartill <>
Subject Re: phase II
Date Wed, 24 May 1995 18:49:16 GMT
> Right.  I propose, now that we see that having apache pipe information to a
> script is actually feasible, that we simply decide on a Very Large Common Log
> File Format, Part Deux that is designed to only be written as STDIN on
> another program (or sent as a char * to the logfile processing procedure). Is
> just a format enough, or do we need something with explicitely typed data
> like CGI?  I.e., if we just define the following
> (current CLF) referrer user-agent real-object errstring 

How about passing something similar to HTTP/MIME headers

User-Agent: Mozilla 1.1 (HPsUX blah blah blah)
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 00:40:52 GMT
URL: /foo/bar.html
HTTP: 1.1
Accept: any/junk

Most of this can be taken directly from the client request, and other
use[ful|less] info added as and when Apache finds it.

The other logging process can then do all the dirty work of 
writing a logfile entry.

> and then pipe it to some really good logging program that we write and 
> distribute with Apache, how likely a contender could that be for CLF2?

If Apache (and other servers) just dump raw data (as above), CLF2 could
be unecessary. Log analyzer writers could just bundle their own program
to create the logfiles.

Hmm, this has great "pass-the-buck" potential. It's easy to extend, and 
the dirty work is done by someone else's code. We could write one which
dumps the current CLF.

> > URL -> filename caching
> >   Let the user list URLs which can have their filenames cached, so
> >   as to avoid all the other Apache overhead of finding and checking
> >   permissions, when the file has no special restrictions.
> > 
> >   This could speed up access to popular pages/images that don't need
> >   special attention.. they just need to be sent.
> Can we automate this somehow?  Let Darwinism determine which accesses are 
> the most frequent and cache on that?

Only the user knows what is safe to cache, but you might be able to
turn that around by saying that the user also knows what *not* to cache.

Rob Hartill                  

View raw message