From: Ian Kluft <ikluft@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199706100423.VAA07946@tiber.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a 2.0 API
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 21:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <199706100005.RAA24352@gabber.c2.net> from "sameer" at Jun 9,
 97 05:05:18 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

> From: sameer <sameer@c2.net>
> > I thought part of the reason for the protocol abstraction was to ease
> > implementation of new protocols for the proxy. Should I just do a
> > different abstraction for that?
> 
> 	I think there should be a Proxy API.

There are a lot of ideas popping up for additions to the API other than for
request processing.  I'd like to point out a proposal I updated yesterday
for a framework to handle adding new interfaces such as this to the 2.0 API.
It sounds like some people were (understandably) preoccupied with the 1.2
release and missed the prior discussion about this.

The proposal has evolved to have an API configuration file that allows new
"interfaces" (i.e. possibly a Proxy API) to be formalized, and a prototype
of a tool to turn them into the server's API-defining header file, or a
template for a module programmer to start from.

The work on the proposal is currently on hold in order to defer to this
discussion on "Thoughts on a 2.0 API".  If there is interest, it can
continue but it really depends on where the discussion goes with it.

I think ideas like your Proxy API is where this can be of the most help.
Take a look and send your comments.

I made a web page with the details of the proposal:
   http://www.employees.org/~ikluft/apache/flex-api-proposal.html
-- 
Ian Kluft  KO6YQ PP-ASEL                                  Cisco Systems, Inc.
ikluft@cisco.com (work)  ikluft@thunder.sbay.org (home)          San Jose, CA