httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: axe proxy support from 2.0?
Date Fri, 12 Nov 1999 22:38:05 GMT
Absolutely. That is what I'm trying to boil it down to. First step was
"nuke the proxy stuff [because nobody wants it]". Of course, then people
speak up saying they DO want it and describe why. Second step is "let's
allow fetching of remote resources [but not call, try, or pretend we're a
proxy]". This seems to fit much better with people. Third step is "make
sure we have a cache in there."

In other words, here is where I think we are for 2.0 w.r.t. the old proxy
module:

* axe "proxy" support (forward/reverse)
* port over (write from scratch) fetching of remote resources. possibly
  simplified in that we won't act as a true proxy, but an HTTP (FTP?)
  client library.
  [Roy: must we act as a proxy, or can Apache pretend it is the origin
   server and keep the client unawares?]
* port over (write from scratch) caching of fetched resources. possibly
  allow caching of other responses and local sources.

That's it.

Now, to be clear: while I'd be happy to be the guy to rip proxy support
(fair enough that if I start a discussion to rip it out, then I better be
ready to volunteer for it :-), I'm not standing up to do the work for this
new stuff. Certainly, if somebody wants to just port over mod_proxy and do
the whole biz, then they're welcome to. I'm simply trying to shepherd the
requirements around bringing the proxy stuff into 2.0.

Also note that I advocate removing forward proxy support. Many of the bugs
we have seem to deal with protocol issues around this. I would also
advocate killing FTP support for remote resources.

Cheers,
-g

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, David Reid wrote:
> Rather than discussing NOT removing something, should we talk about what we
> WANT in the new "proxy/file getter/cache/whatever we want to call it"?
> 
> Might be more productive and then sets the targets for someone to start...
> 
> Just my 2p...
> 
> david
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <tvaughan@aventail.com>
> To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
> Sent: 12 November 1999 18:17
> Subject: Re: axe proxy support from 2.0?
> 
> 
> > Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> writes:
> >
> > > Greg Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > > All right. Axe the proxy thing. Build in specific support for grabbing
> > > > files from elsewhere. If that goes best into the layering, as another
> APR
> > > > type, or whatever, then it is clear what is going on.
> > > >
> > > > It seems that we could simplify a lot of our life if we stopped
> viewing it
> > > > as a (reverse) proxy and viewed/built it as a set of
> > > > functions/types/whatever for fetching remote files. Certainly a lot
> easier
> > > > to build (rather than porting/rebuilding mod_proxy for 2.0).
> > >
> > > This is true - though this encompasses about 90% of the existing proxy
> > > code anyway. Remember that the ftp and http "client" bits as well as the
> > > caching engine all have significant use inside the reverse proxy,
> > > especially the caching - it makes a huge difference on a busy server.
> > > Even the parent cache support is useful to connect the reverse proxy
> > > through a further proxy.
> >
> > The cache is key. We've seen latency times increase by as much as a factor
> > of six without it. (The more cache friendly an origin server is, the
> > better.) It might be useful to abstract the cache out as well. I suppose
> > mod_include might want to cache a document it somehow knows can be cached.
> >
> > The ability to add other protocols, like ones that start with 'H' and end
> > with 'S', would be nice too.
> >
> > -Tom
> >
> > --
> > Tom Vaughan <tvaughan at aventail dot com>
> 

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/


Mime
View raw message