httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From (Geoff White)
Subject Re: Survey information...and names for Apache
Date Tue, 05 Dec 1995 19:11:06 GMT
At 09:33 PM 12/4/95 -0800, wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Geoff White wrote:
>>         The server that I would LIKE to build/participate in building would
>>         have the following features:
>>         o       Apache 1.0 base
>>         o       Enhance and clean-up the "Module API"
>Could you elaborate as to what it doesn't do cleanly, what specifically 
>should change?  Seems like for what it was designed for, it's pretty 
>clean - I think the only thing people have expressed wanting to be able 
>to do is some sort of pipelining (so for example, CGI scripts created by 
>mod_cgi could have SSI's which are parsed by mod_include).  
>>         o       Create a New "Protocol API"

I would say that the real work he is that of documentation so that folks
could begin to know the resources, structures, and methods available to them.
Right now all we have are the API notes which help, but it is still trial
and error, if we had a better document and maybe some form of coding
standards then
it would be "all good".  With these conventions, then things like the dld
interface can move from experimental status to something that is useful
in an environment where folks don't want to give out source but want to
to use Apache.  I think it's necessary if we want Apache to be a truly
viable alternative to the "N"-word's server(s).

>This is an area where you, Ben Laurie, and probably Sameer know what's 
>needed best of all, so maybe you could come up with a proposal API?  Rob 
>(Thau), anything you want to add now that would help them?  Maybe Simon 
>Spero could give feedback as to if a protocol API could support HTTP-NG - 
>I have a feeling -NG support would need more out of an API than SSL/SHTTP 
>would, so maybe that's ambitious.  Hmm.

I've had some brief talks with Simon about these things, he seems to believe
that a protocol API is possibly the answer but he does feel that you NEED
MT support in your OS (thus Apache must be MT-safe) in order to realize
HTTP-NG in all it's glory.

>>         o       Server core modifications to make the code MT safe
>I know rst spent a fair amount of effort to make sure it was MT safe - 
>what's not?

I hear it's close, but I recall some areas in the code (I'll find them if
you want) where rst(?) clearly states that this area IS NOT MT safe, not a
big deal,
and I don't think it's a lot of work, but someone should take the time to be

>>         o       Extra work on the DLD module
>Okay, sure.
>>         If we had these features then I believe the following would happen:
>>         1) We could have plug-and-play compatibility for free and
>>            security technology (Ben's SSL work and Teressa's SWT), commercial
>>            add-ons could be sold as binaries that are dynamically loaded thus
>>            protecting their intellectual property, and keeping Apache free.
>>            all of the changes to Apache outlined above could be freely given 
>>            back to the Apache effort.
>>         2) A good platform from which people could do affordable HTTP-NG
>>            and other types of Web research.
>This would be nice, yes.
>>         3) A solid platform for various other server technologies that
>>            need to be developed.  We need to prototype some new things
>>            for future projects here, the current Apache is good but not quite
>>            good enough to seemlessly do protocol reasearch, a Protocol
>>            API would be a good solution.
>W3C just came out with a "miniserver", a "server frame work that can be used
>as a basis for writing portable servers".  Based on their wwwlib and 
>httpd, maybe they have some thoughts in this direction.
>>         4) A viable alternative to commercial servers that might have some
>>            other corporation's or government's agenda at stake. Some of the
>>            recent news reports give me the willies :)
>What, Key Escrow got you down?  :)
>Anyways, these are all great ideas, and I hope the people who are 
>qualified to act on them can find the time to do so - I know I'm not so 
>I'll stay out of the way.  However, I have been collecting ideas towards 
>the "where do we go from here" discussion - at least, a list of what 
>stuff we could/should be hacking on, like persistant connections, md5 
>authentication, etc.  Plus, if I had about 4 more hours a day I could 
>make what it really deserves to be, but that's another 
>issue... I'll post about this later.  

Yeah, I don't feel particularly qualified but I might have some time
to work on some of it.

View raw message