httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: The List
Date Wed, 17 Jan 1996 13:00:09 GMT

I've added everyone's comments to the list, and added a set of initials 
after each to denote who made the comment, to refer to later in case we 
forget why something was suggested. :)

On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Alexei Kosut wrote:
> 1. Regarding /~, my mod_userdir patch can do that, and is in for_Apache_1.1b0

Ah, right, okeydokey.  I support making this a part of the core 

> 2. I poked a little at MD5, but I'm not sure I can get a chance to follow 
>    through on that, especially if we want to go to an authentication API 
>    (which I think would be a good idea).

Since you've poked at it more than the rest of us, could you make a stab 
at least at what such an api might look like?  I don't see why an MD5 
module needs to wait for that, unless you're concerned about N different 
authentication methods proliferating into N different modules...

> 3. I'm not sure a graphical installation process is needed. What does it 
>    take to install? Not much. Maybe edit a line in Configuration, Configure, 
>    and make. We throw in some sort of automatic configurer like Gnu 
>    autoconf, and it's one step. I think a graphical process would be more 
>    trouble than it's worth. 

Yeah, the graphical bit was really more intended for the second item, the 
administration service, but still something that made initial 
first-ever-user setup and configuration easy would be a Good Thing.  
Right now it's a mishmosh mostly because of history and feature creep, I 
think it could be cleaned up a leetle.  

> On the other hand, a graphical *adminstration* 
>    process would be nice. However, that *should* be done via the web, 
>    because it does make remote administration very easy. Not all of us have 
>    access to X.

Here I'm inclined to disagree - while nice in theory, in practice (and 
I've administered two different servers with this functionality) it 
feels very "remote" to me.  Sorta like sitting on the beach watching 
surfers for 3 hours then telling your friends you went surfing.  
Something like that.  Sure, with server-push and client-pull that 
"dynamicism" can be emulated, but... I'm not making a great case here, 
you'll just hafta trust me :)  Keep in mind there are free X servers for 
the Mac and Windows, and the X consortium has Broadway up their sleeve 
(an X server implemented as a Netscape plug-in).

Side note - why doesn't Netscape just become an operating system and be 
done with it?  Sorry...

> 4. I'd hold off on the HTTP/1.1 stuff (content negotiation especially) 
>    until the http-wg comes back with something more solid. While certain 
>    things (like Keep-Alive) aren't likely to change, some things are 
>    almost certainly going to.

Actually, the content negotiation subgroup isn't going to have a huge 
list of changes - as defined in HTTP/1.1 content negotiation is fine for 
the granularity of content-types and levels.  The HTML feature set 
problem is not going to be solved by us, in fact manmy of us feel it's 
something that should be solved in HTML using conditionals if possible. :)

> Oh, and toss a proxy module onto the pile somewhere. I'm almost done with
> one *grin*. By next weekend, I should have a working version you can all
> play with, though I make no gaurantees. 



--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

View raw message