httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Harrie Hazewinkel <>
Subject Re: Apache 2.0 for multi protocol usage
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:08:48 GMT

David Reid wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's just me, but it seems like we're talking in circles
> about one particular solution that is being pushed at us. 

If you have a better idea let's hear it. :-))

> Given that only a
> small number of people have been involved in the discussions, should there
> be a more "generic" set of conversations about what we want to achieve with
> this?
> For instance, what does "multi-protocol" really mean? 

What I see as multi-protocol is:
The ability to handle different protocols by a single server.

I.e. not only the HTTP (this includes HTTPS = SSL + HTTP)
application protocol is handle by Apache, but also protocols
like FTP, POP,....

> There has been some
> discussion about authentication, state maintenance and various specific
> protocols.  Question is what are we trying to achieve?

The goal is:
Enabling Apache to serve content via various multiple protocols
and create a common infrastructure for protocol modules that would
avoid re-invent (re-implement) constructs like the state_rec 
each time for each protocol module.

> There are some very useful concepts that I'd like to see apache 2 support.
> A good authentication model would be useful, but I'm not overly convinced
> that I'd like to see it being tagged on as part of multi-protocol work.  I'm
> inclined to say that it should be a core apache "thing" and if we get it
> right (as OtherBill said) then all protocols can just use it.

I will agree that having a good auth model other protocols also could
it. However, that is not enough. The protocol state (and in some cases
multiple protocol states, threading in IMAP) should also be handled.
That means, we also should provide a good protocol state model.

I believe that these 2 (auth and protocol state) go together.
IMHO, it is a bit unfortenate that the discussion around the
state_rec goes more about authentication information and does
not directly include protocol state.

> Given the magnitude of the changes required, the fact that there hasn't been
> much open discussion of the issues and their solutions and that 95% of our
> users really want a server that serves http/https, I'm inclined to say that
> this work should be punted until 2.1.

I understand the mission of the Apache server project. It is (IMO) 
unfortenate that it only focusses on HTTP/HTTPS.
Maybe it are 95% of the users who want this, but is that really the
same percentage in servers?? I believe the other 5% who want Apache
to do more run more then 5% of the servers.

> Ryan keeps saying he wants a quick beta and a real release of Apache 2 as
> soon as we're ready, so is adding all this semi-hashed out, complex code
> really going to achieve that????
> If we all pull in the same direction for a few months we might actually move
> forward.

Various people have indeed various opinions. More then a year ago
Apache 2.0 already provided good capabilities for scaling. IMHO,
they should have released that already as a seperate version.
Even if it did not have so much other functionality over 1.3, like
filtering. It had enough good things and it would have showed
progress to the world. I believe since it already took so long,
people are willing to wait for the good and extra features
(if I may call the multiprotocol proposal a good feature).

phone: +39-3474932300

View raw message