httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <>
Subject Re: W3C <-> Apache
Date Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:31:06 GMT
At 12:57 2/10/98 -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>> That is why I am very concerned about the recent leaks of information onto
>> this mailing list that I rightfully understand have made you upset. The
>> information that I have seen go by did not represent HTTP-NG in a rightful
>> way. I would be happy to help in any way that I can but it requires that
>> somebody from the Apache group signs up to participate.
>While the gooals may be fine, the method has serious flaws from where I


I suggest that instead of throwing a lot of big (and largely meaningless)
words at each other, I think we should work on how to proceed. This
requires, however, that we start using a more constructive tone instead of
calling each other for shit heads.

To explain where we are coming from, it's clear that the Web will (if not
already) have merged with some sort of a distributed object system. Until
now, the most serious attempts have been to base it on top of HTTP using
POST. While this is a viable way to go, it is not likely that it will be
the best way to ensure the evolution of the Web.

On the other hand, neither of the distributed object systems around have
any of the characteristics of a scalable, lightweight system useable on the
Internet at large.

The question that we are trying to solve is to see whether it is possible
to make a distributed object system that actually meets the requirements of
the Web. Now what are these requirements?

That is not quite so easy to see which is the reason why we have two
Working Groups as part of the HTTP-NG Project:

     -	The Web Characterization Group analyses existing log files to
	find patterns and distributions (requires 50%)
     -	The Protocol Design Group tries to design a protocol that can
	fulfill the needs put forward by the WCG (requires 50%)
     -	The HTTP-NG Interest Group is for interested parties that 
	don't have the time/resources to participate 50% but want
	to follow discussions on a mailing list. Of course, the 
	level of influence is set accordingly.

There are many people who have ideas about how and if a distributed object
can be used as a foundation of the Web. We are actually trying to make a
testbed where we can run scenarios provided by the WCG to see how things
work out.

I actually talked about building a testbed, making rough implementations,
and taking data which is why we haven't used a lot of time on writing
documentation. Our experience from HTTP/1.1 shows that this is the only way
to guarantee that a design works - we don't want to be in the same
situation that Tim, Roy, I and others were in when HTTP/1.0 was designed.

>> If you do not think that 50% is a reasonable or practical amount of
>> participation then we have another forum called the HTTP-NG Interest Group
>> where participation isn't constrained to participation but of course the
>> impact on the project is lower.
>Erm... I'm afraid I must be missing wherever or whatever this group may

As I said, I would very much like to get more input from the Apache group -
I do need people who can do real work. I have made the conditions clear so
here you go - it's up to you!

>AFAIK, the current Apache core has no hope in hell of implementing
>presumed parts of HTTP-NG like MUX without serious changes to the process
>model.  While these changes are planned anyway, there can be no conceptual
>planning to be sure the two can match up right--and avoiding yet another
>major set of changes when HTTP-NG does magically appear.

Right now, it doesn't make sense to talk about large scale deployment - we
don't know how it is going to turn out. The HTTP-NG project has until June
to try and come up with enough arguments to make a better judgement and to
be able to demo parts of the concepts.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium

View raw message