httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Murcko <ch...@telebase.com>
Subject Re: 1.1b3 and things???
Date Fri, 07 Jun 1996 19:36:09 GMT
David Robinson liltingly intones:
> 
> On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> > It's 3230 lines of relatively dense code. Those aren't all executable, but
> > anything over about 600 lines gives me an uncomfortable feeling. It's more
> > than twice the size of any other piece of Apache source code (Even 1500
> > lines is a tad too big, IMHO). Isn't it really a subsystem at this point?
> 
> 1500 lines too big? I suppose that, having working on gcc, I was used
> 330Kb source files...
> 
Sorry. 8^) I've actually been on gummint jobs where any function > 300
lines needed written dispensation to be coded, and modules were limited
to about 600 lines. That has always seemed reasonable, ever since, but
it's just a personal problem. 8^)

> > I was suggesting splitting up the code into related C modules, to build
> > more easily. No APIs(yet, other than the function args and usual config
> > command stuff), no connection abstractions(yet), just something easier
> > to maintain and faster to build when testing and extending.
> > 
> > I'm not convinced that the proxy idea works better with each protocol's
> > proxy glued to the top level API. This approach would seem to force
> > per-protocol caching, and I don't see an advantage to that, given that
> > background cache garbage collection (or a separate daemon) would be
> > a really nice feature for proxy performance. On the other hand, there's
> > only one API.
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by forcing 'per-protocol caching', but
> I'm sure its not true.
> 
Oh, OK then, I'll see about doing the merge as you suggested. I realized
after I wrote this that per-protocol caching was balderdash, as far as
garbage collection was concerned, especially given Sameer's and Ben's
suggestions for uniqueness testing the cache files.

> > SSL's going in next checkin. Hopefully, so is PASV ftp.
> > Then the proxy is also fully functional through SOCKS proxies and
> > tightly configured screening routers, and the like.
> 
> PASV ftp sounds great (I would have done that myself). I must have missed 
> something with SSL; is the group going to distribute full https support then?
> 
I have a user-contributed CONNECT method SSL proxy in the current patches.

> > David, should I infer from your reply that you have time now to work on
> > Apache stuff again? If so, please feel free to. I'm neither looking to
> > usurp your role here, nor denigrate the considerable quality work you
> > have put into mod_proxy, among other things. I've collected a list of
> > about 16 items suggested by the group to turn this module into a high
> > capacity, industrial strength proxy. That's where I was headed in your
> > absence. I've 5-6 items to go to get there, but not until 1.2.
> 
> It sounds as though you're in the middle of doing any changes I might 
> have made; keep up the good work!
> 
Thanks. I get better at this stuff as I go along, though. You guys is still
seein' the rough edges. 8^) Ben has made a significant contribution to the
current proxy, probably more than I at this time.

chuck
Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA	chuck@telebase.com
And now, on a lighter note:
Nasrudin walked into a teahouse and declaimed, "The moon is more useful
than the sun."  "Why?", he was asked.  "Because at night we need the
light more."

Mime
View raw message