Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:02:49 +0200
From: Harrie Hazewinkel <harrie@mod-snmp.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: The word on: adding modules
Message-ID: <1689009.1026324169@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.44.0207101211310.356-100000@mobile.webweaving.org>
References: <Pine.OSX.4.44.0207101211310.356-100000@mobile.webweaving.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

HI,

I am probably not speaking for most of the modules. I have been doing
patching of Apache forever, since otherwise certain 
information/functionality
from Apache cannot be done in an SNMP managed way by MOD-SNMP.


Harrie
--On Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:26 PM +0200 dirkx@covalent.net wrote:

>
> Right now, as devlopers, we have a whole range of methods of adding in a
> module; from hacking it in, copying it into an existing modules/*
> directory (e.g.  auth, mappers), APXS all the way, down to its own
> directory with a little config.m4.
>
> When documenting 'How to add your modules to apache 2.0' what should be
> official word - i.e. what do we want the instructions on a random
> modules.apache.org or sourceforge module to say:
>
> 	1.	APXS prefered
>
> 			apxs -c mod_foo.c bar.c comms.c
>

I would think that the most prefered method could be APXS.
WHy do I think this??

1)
For most users it is simple to do:
    ./configure --enable-module=so ; make ; make install
Followed by building a module with APXS.


2)
On some systems their is now an Apache already available and thus also
APXS. On those systems an user adding a module can easily use APXS
without any fiddling in Apache code/directories.

> Or, if you need it,
>
> 	2.	module/foo directory with Makefile.in/config.m4

This would always require a user to compile a module with compiling
Apache as well. APXS could avoid this, if he can retrieve binaries
somewhere else of Apache (like is provided by some companies)

>
> as to allow more Configure(ation) also for the simple case ? I am looking
> for 'the word' :-) as right now the 1.3 situation is messy: dso, static,
> apxs, hack modules,c - and would like to some more guidance for 2.0.
>
> Opinions ? Fears ?


OK, the above opinion does not mean that I think patching should not
be done to the apache core. From a viewpoint of MOD-SNMP, I still
will do it, unless some parts of the code will be made in such a
way that modules can dynamically change/tune the configuration
without restarting the server.

(This is not ment to start discussing dynamic configuration without
restarting, since I know that manye of you oppose this anyway.
With or without good reasoning from those.)


Harrie

Internet Management Consulting
mailto:harrie@mod-snmp.com                http ://www.mod-snmp.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management to the Apache server.