httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: something to think about for 2.0...
Date Tue, 08 Apr 1997 19:55:25 GMT
I'm strongly in the "forget the past" camp ;)  You could say radical.  I'm
talking not only forget the past config file format but also forget
operating systems that aren't "modern" enough!  Yeah yeah I can dream :) 

At any rate I've got a list of optimizations and I have been thinking of
methods of satisfying the present configuration generality in a more
optimal way... I think we can pull some tricks with "compiling" the config
file to a more optimal format that's run by a light interpreter.  For
example, the process of matching URLs against <Directory>/etc sections is
just an application of a lexical scanner.  In the absence of .htaccess
files you can make this scream by using techniques like flex does... in
the presence of .htaccess files you end up having to "truncate" the search
tree at certain points and start dipping into the filesystem.  But I'm far
enough out of touch with recent language theory work to know if there's a
cool method of updating a lexical grammar on the fly.


On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> Something I'd like you all to think about to yourselves, whilst taking a shower
> or driving to work or zoning out at the park: 
> Is there any benefit, in terms of speed, memory usage, config file complexity,
> or code maintenance, to dropping the absolute dogma of total backwards
> compliance.
> Consider the chain from URL to file system resource.  In Apache right now this
> is very complex, involving several overlapping directives with somewhat
> unpredictable results for those unfamiliar with Apache internals.  Does Occam's
> razor have a role here? 
> I think 2.0 will allow us to take something of a departure from our heritage,
> should we wish to do so.  Certainly other servers have benefitted from not
> having backwards compatibility with NCSA as a design requirement.
> No need for discussion now, just want people to think about it...
> 	Brian
> --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--

View raw message