httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Apache 2.0 for multi protocol usage
Date Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:58:54 GMT
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 10:14:18AM -0700, wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Um... let's not forget that you haven't posted the patch(es) to new-httpd
> > yet (i.e. most of us haven't seen them). It should not be committed until
> > that happens. I think there are a number of concerns that people have (Roy,
> > myself) with the proposed design.
> The patch was posted when we posted that we had a server running with the
> patch.  A version that compiles and runs against HEAD can be found at

What MSGID or subject line? I can't find it. And I don't see a patch on that
web server (it is just a blank page).

> > For myself, I find the state_rec to be superfluous, and the overall intent
> > feels like forcing some kind of commonality between protocols rather than
> > providing a structure for multi-protocol (and then building on that). If
> > pieces of protocols can be shared, then share the functionality, but don't
> > put them into request_rec simply because two protocols happen to use them.
> >
> > Ideally, request_rec would contain only a few items. Things like a pool, the
> > connection it is associated with, and a void* for the protocol-private
> > information.
> I agree, that should be the goal, but it is a large goal.  This paper and
> the corresponding patch are a first step.  We are moving in the right
> direction, but we don't pretend to doing everything required.

It isn't a large goal. All you need to do is call request_rec "http
specific" and introduce "struct ap_request" for the common piece. IOW, don't
try to trim down request_rec (and ALL users), but introduce the new record.

We can then discuss what goes into ap_request. It can be quite small and

And punt that darn state_rec thing.


Greg Stein,

View raw message