httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject EAPI (was Re: 1.3.10 release... postponed)
Date Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:51:51 GMT
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> So if I understand you correctly, you're proposing I should incorporate
> EAPI into 2.0 minus the 1.3-specific stuff which is already obsolete by
> 2.0?

no i never said *you* had to do it, i specifically said that we should
have a plan and a volunteer to execute that plan.  i'm in no position to
tell you what you should do :)

> I always though, for EAPI in 2.0 there is resistance, too. Because
> people except me though that with Ben's hooks EAPI is not needed in
> 2.0... hmmm... confusing.

i'm aware that EAPI has more than the hooks.  i think it would be rad, as
a first step, if you could add in all the extra hooks that you've needed
with EAPI... you've always had a good handle on what extra hooks we could
use -- for both ssl and rewrite.

> Seems like we will never find consensus, I think ;)

nah i'm sure we will at some point!  heck if we had to we could just
dedicate an entire major release to "adding in all those patches which
folks never seem to want to do on the dev cycle because they want to work
with a stable server".

> 1. EAPI is not designed for performance. It is designed for
>    100% loosly coupling modules and this way especially support
>    the DSO situation (no symbol references at all between modules)
>    and third party extension situation (no extra export and import
>    references at all between code parts). And EAPI hooks are more or
>    less "self-contained", i.e. they are stand-alone and don't need any
>    export/import mechanisms both at the provider and consumer side.

ok i honestly haven't looked at EAPI for some time... if i recall
correctly here, KEAPI handles this step using integers instead of strings
(i.e. it's essentially that "atomize" stuff we've talked about).  i'm
totally down with doing the non-hook stuff that way... 'cause it affects
only the modules which decide to talk with other modules.

> EAPI is more (it also contains context attachments, shared memory pools,
> etc.)

which of course we want in 2.0 as well.

> And now to a totally different aspect:
> THIS TIME IT WAS NOT MY IDEA TO NOW INTEGRATE EAPI INTO 1.3!
> So why to the hell do I find myself here attacked, just
> because I thought consensus was already found by others?

i wasn't aware i was attacking you, i'm sorry if it sounds that way.  why
is it that every time we try to discuss anything it gets labelled as an
attack?

Dean


Mime
View raw message