Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 49880 invoked by uid 500); 5 May 2000 20:08:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 49866 invoked from network); 5 May 2000 20:08:57 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: koj.rkbloom.net: rbb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:10:34 -0400 (EDT) From: rbb@covalent.net X-Sender: rbb@koj.rkbloom.net To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: IOL - ap_sendX ap_recvX ap_transmitfile sematics? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > > And, I guess the big question is, what does the IOL indirection buy us > > over direct calls to the apr? > > when i did the mpm/iol work i didn't use anything in APR -- because it was > a short proof-of-concept. i wanted to be sure that we got the > architecture right. > > it's been said many times that the layering could be moved to APR. > > regardless of where it is, the layering is needed... and APR to me is more > about a uniform interface to various OS features which are common amongst > many OSs. I have been on both sides of this discussion about moving layering into APR. I still don't know how I feel about it. Moving the IOL's into the APR structures removes some complexity, and adds other complexity. I have a design for doing it somewhere, but it is pretty low on my list of priorities, because I'm just not sure it's a good idea yet. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------