httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: hook to an API function on fork()
Date Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:16:50 GMT
On Fri, 16 Aug 1996, sameer wrote:


> 	hm. I actually like a less filename oriented point of view. I
> suggest changing filename to "object" and URI->object translators,
> with one type of object being in the fs. (That's what is directly
> supported)

But that's not what Apache does. Apache is very much filesystem-oriented.
It takes the filename and traverses it, looks for .htaccess files, etc -
as long as we support .htaccess files, we have to be filesystem-based, for
the most part.

> 	Then again, I just spend two days in vancouver talking about
> LDAP, OIDs, ACLs, and OODBs, so I have DBs on the brain right now.
> > But here's a thought. I've been thinking about Apache 2.0 and sfio stacked
> > disciplines, and that sort of thing. And I've discovered that the Apache
> > API doesn't quite work right. Let's say you want to add a protocol-level
> > thingy. Fine; that works. For example, the thttpd idea of slowing down the
> > response if a user has transmitted "too much" data. Just stack in a
> > function in a fixup, and it'll work.
> 	This notion of how you use fixups only applies to the
> sfio-apache, right? If not, I have no idea what you're talking about
> here.. I didn't think that fixups can be used right now to the
> protocol-level thingies.

They can't. Yes, I'm referring to an Apache 2.0 with sfio or similar.

-- Alexei Kosut <>            The Apache HTTP Server

View raw message