httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From TOKI...@aol.com
Subject Re: [PATCH] mod_proxy Keepalives
Date Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:43:57 GMT

In a message dated 01-03-31 17:06:37 EST, Bill Stoddard writes...

>  You will -never- see #ifdef IBMHTTPD (et. al) in Apache.

Ah... but you most certainly -will- see it in certain Apache modules.
You have to. If you want to support both 'regular' Apache and IBM's
version you have to know when those conn_rec items are missing
and when conn->client->fd has become conn->client->pfd, etc.

When IBM customers go out and grab modules for IBMHTTPD 
because they KNOW it's really Apache but then discover that
apxs won't work... they are contacting the module authors, not IBM.

I am not speaking just for myself... I have spoken with other module
authors who are dealing with the same issues. THEY are getting 
the problem reports... not IBM.

All I was saying is that since this is the 'reality' out there wouldn't it
help if the IBMHTTPD changes were posted back to Apache so there
is no mystery? 

Having 'ifdef IBMHTTPD' in Apache doesn't bother me... it certainly
wouldn't be near as messy as following all the 'ifdef NETWARE' stuff
and I have a feeling more people are using 'IBM' Apache than are
using 'Novell NETWARE' Apache.

> The changes are related to SSL interfacing to the AFPA cache on 
> Windows NT.  The AFPA cache on Windows implements it's own network
> i/o layer (semantically similar to sockets). 

I know... but most of your customers don't. See above.

> As a policy, the ASF does not commit code that is product specific 
> (and this is a damn good policy IMHO).

Wow.. Ok... but anyone who takes a close look at http_main.c could very
much disagree with you ( See above regarding NETWARE ) and what you claim
is a 'policy'. It all comes down to what your definition of a 'product' is 
and whether or
not all the HP_UX, BEOS, AIX, NCR, TPR, NETWARE stuff constitutes 'supporting
a specific product' or not. It's sort of a 'gray line' that's been drawn in 
Apache.

If any 'product' becomes sufficiently requested then it is GOING to get 
supported.
If it's not, it won't. That seems to be the only real 'policy' as far as I 
can tell.

Heck, even adding any kind of support for WINSOCK itself could be called 
'supporting 
a specific product' since it's not part of the OS and is mostly still just 
the licensed 
Hummingbird  Communications, Ltd. stuff. ( Right click your WSOCK32N.DLL and 
you will see what I mean... it's not Microsoft's (C)... it's Hummingbird's ).

> I suppose you want to get mod_gzip working on IHS? 

It already does. Has for quite some time. 

This isn't about 'mod_gzip'.

This thread was (is) about proposed changes to conn_rec and I was just trying 
to point out what I felt might be 'relevant' considerations. Greg Stein said 
Apache 
doesn't give a crap about IBMHTTPD. That was news to me. Now I know.

As a module author trying to support ALL popular installations of 
Apache I DO 'give a crap' about IBMHTTPD and the 'differences' in the code and
if I can keep the consideration of it 'in the spotlight' because it might 
just be 
good for both IBM and Apache then what's wrong with that? I don't see 
'we' and 'them' as Greg seems to... I just see a common codebase. 

Maybe I need my head examined.

> If you keep this off topic discussion off the mailing list maybe I can help 
you.

I am not the one who needs the help... it's YOUR customers.

Do I have your permission to start forwarding email to you when people
start reporting apxs failures with certain Apache modules and IHS?

I am not being sarcastic... it's an honest question... and the email is
real and pours in from everywhere. Is there some IBM web site I am unaware
of that I can point them to so I don't have to keep explaining what the
issues are to YOUR customers?

Yours..
Kevin Kiley




Mime
View raw message