httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Robinson <d...@esi.co.uk>
Subject Re: 1.1b3 and things???
Date Fri, 07 Jun 1996 17:50:03 GMT
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> David Robinson liltingly intones:
> > 
> > On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> > > instead of a long list of objects.
> > 
> > With respect, too big for what?
> > 
> 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...

> 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.

> 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?

> 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!

 David.


Mime
View raw message