httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>
Subject Re: beta?
Date Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:09:49 GMT
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 rbb@covalent.net wrote:

> 
> > > > The question is, what "protocol" to use? Just sending a struct describing
> > > > what's going on is one option; have each process send to a socket
> > > > (UDP??) with the monitoring module/process running on?
> > > 
> > > This is solution that works.
> > > 
> > > However, I also miss still a protocol field in the
> > > server_rec. If Apache can support multiple protocol
> > > via protocol modules it is my opinion that each
> > > server ('server_rec') needs to know which protocol
> > > it serves.
> > 
> > ?? So how come mod_echo works without one of these?
> 
> We don't need it, and in fact it would be very difficult to get it
> right.  Which protocols do we support?  What happens when a new protocol
> is added?  I believe this field will end up being a major headache without
> a major gain.  The mod_status stuff will most likely want this field, but
> that is strictly for reporting, not for anything else.

At least for the near future, I'd have said the port number would be more
use: most multi-port configs will be either vhosts (I have the various
Apache site CVS trees on :80, and the beginnings of a validator.w3.org
mirror on :81), in which case the port is more use than the protocol, or
HTTP/HTTPS, in which case it's often clear which is which - 80 vs 443.

Maybe later, when there's a mod_ftp, mod_imap, mod_smtp in common use :-)


James.


Mime
View raw message