httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Hartill <hart...@ooo.lanl.gov>
Subject Re: non-forking wish list
Date Thu, 08 Jun 1995 09:36:23 GMT
Randy said...
> I suppose I have made the most noise about this.....
> I tabled this with 0.7 becoming more of a reality.  I'll start looking
> at this again today.
> 
> My thoughts are that we should _not_ be creating another process, 
> but be giving the responsibility to the parent process

by default, I agree - no extra process for logging, the parent does
absolutely nothing now in 0.7.x (except for handling SIGCHLD, SIGHUP..),
so it's ready to take on a new job.

as an option, the user should be allowed to override the Apache parent
logging, in favor of an external process, which the children could talk
to via a socket.

> and enabling the parent to be able to write to a FIFO.  Can we 
> agree on that?

FIFO - as in, first child to tell it to log something, gets logged  ?

> I have some code in 0.6.x that used the CLF and added 5 user defineable
> fields. (the core dumps are tough to log though....)  :-)
> 
> Since I don't have much spare time to waste these days, I would at
> least like to know that I am heading off in a direction that I
> can expect others to be coming along behind to pick up the pieces....
> :-)

I still think the children should send pieces of loggable info, as 
and when they feel like, and in no particular order. This'll make
configuration of logging *much* easier in the long term.
IMO, CLF II should define how the info is passed... preferably in
some abbreviated form..

URL: /foo/bar/
VHOST: www.apache.disorg
HTTP: 1.0
CL: client.some.where.com
UA: Mozilla;2.0
REF: http://another.edu/links/com_sites.html
MTH: GET
QS: query+string
STAT: 200
LEN: 1234                                (content-length sent)
STIME: 1789364                           (time request received)
ETIME: 1789366                           ( "     "     completed)
AUSER: fred
APASS: fredsPassword
etc.

For new members to the list, child processes would send lines such as
these to the logging process with a child number attached. The child
num would be used by the logging process to determine which pieces of 
info need to be grouped. When the logging process receives say the
ETIME, it knows it is safe to log request.


--
Rob Hartill                           
http://nqcd.lanl.gov/~hartill/

Mime
View raw message