httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: mod_dav integration
Date Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:56:28 GMT
On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 08:26:03PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> mod_dav, is in my understanding, an end-point with only a few 'debatable'
> spec issues that are open.  It isn't a growing, flowering and everchanging
> entity.  As such, it certainly can drop into the server base.

Correct. mod_dav implements Class 1 and Class 2 functionality as specified
by RFC 2518 (basically: all of it). DAV is as hard-core spec'd as HTTP.

Future, independent, unrelated work can be done for the additional DAV
specifications, but those aren't RFCs yet. I'm not sure where to implement
these; Apache makes the most sense, but it isn't an issue for a couple
months at least.

> mod_proxy has a very, very long way to go, which is why I'm glad it's
> going to get it's own treatment outside of the core for a while.  This is
> good.  I noticed noone has suggested adding dav to modules/standard or
> any such nonsense.

I would have proposed it for modules/standard/ :-) ... but it is a bit too
big for that. It has multiple files, and it has its "plugin" mechanism which
I felt directories like modules/dav/fs/ were the best organization.

> > With mod_dav and Apache not being developed together, this really scares
> > me.  Is mod_dav's development list going to move to new-httpd?  If not, I
> > really dislike putting mod_dav into the core server.
> Well, that's what is happening to mod_proxy today (that is, it's split for
> a while till there is a big plan and a fresh proposal.)  If Greg feels it
> is fundimentally complete, then discussion must move here.

It is complete. In fact, it is the only Open Source implementation of a
Class 1,2 DAV server available. There are some other open source DAV server
implementations, but they aren't fully functionality, nor are they stable
and completed work. mod_dav has been around for about 20 months... (sigh)

> If he wants to
> set out to pull together a 2.0 dav, then that can have it's own list while
> issues are hashed and debated.
> Upon folding in a new mod_proxy or mod_dav 2.0, then it's time for a rehash
> of what is going to be committed, and why, and who the maintainer will be,
> big fundimental design issues ought to be brought to new-httpd early, lest
> the whole update is vetoed.

Agreed here, and my intent. Heck, I'm asking before integrating 1.0! :-)

Maintainer? Myself at least. And as with any Apache code, anybody else who
has an interest. It won't be "mine" any more.

> Incorporating dav will undoubtedly force some propritary methods of web
> authoring into history.

hehe... let's hope so. It is interesting to note that the authors of those
proprietary methods (MS FrontPage and NetObjects' Fusion) want to replace
their mechanisms with DAV.

IMO, even open protocols like FTP are a lost cause. A number of people host
web pages on my server. They don't have system accounts, let alone FTP
access. Their user info is simply in a mod_auth_mysql table :-), and they
author and manage their pages via DAV.

> I believe it is key for the long term health of
> Apache and the internet in general.

I "violently agree" here :-)  [but you probably guessed that...]


Greg Stein,

View raw message