httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Harrie Hazewinkel <>
Subject Re: merging httpd-pop3 into httpd-2.0?
Date Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:59:46 GMT

On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 02:59 PM, Martin Kutschker wrote:

> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 21:43:41 +0100
> From: Harrie Hazewinkel <>
> Cc: Ben Hyde <>
>> 1) [snip] I believe it would be better to
>> add first a good message store API in such a way that different
>> types of mailboxes and databases can be used. The protocol
>> module should do only do the protocol part plus an example
>> message store.
> I disagree. If you intend to introduce a message store API, then
> separate module should implement an 'message store'. Otherwise it would
> make little sense to create the API at all. Though I agree, that a
> message store API sounds interesting.

Maybe I did not phrase my self right, but we are in agreement here.
Another layer of an message store API is needed for this and potentailly
a new module.
IMHO, preferably also one who could support for instance, IMAP and the 
mail protocols.

>> 2) Also the module/protocol is not a complete. For instance, it does
>> not implement AUTH command.
> This leads to other, new auth-type-modules (especially for
> message store protocols - pop, imap, nntp?).

That is correct, it leads to another auth-type module.

> SASL is such a plugable authentication. Though it fails to be easily 
> extendable. Perhaps an ASF xp implementation of the RFC is of > interest.

That is a different issue, but I agree.

>> Also by adding a module like this,
>> the complete group should also think of making Apache
>> somehow a bit more 'different protocol friendly'. I understand
>> this is already a topic of the past (2 years ago), but
>> now it becomes valid request to ask, IMHO.
> I'm not sure if it makes sense to turn an http server in an all-purpose
> multi-protocol beast. I'd favour a number of servers which rely on a 
> set
> of well-defined libs (APR, APR-util and what else?).

I agree here as well. Does it make sense to make Apache an all-purpose
server. Somehow it could be, since you can reuse parts of Apache and APR
for instance. But then one does not need to use Apache to make a POP 
while still using APR. Simply download APR and use it as a library.

> A super-server would not be easy to administer (bringing down pop just
> to restart http?). And perhaps some memory models suit one protocol
> better than others.

I agree here. The difference between POP and HTTP is somehow relative
little (OK, over simplified). But protocols do in the most cases a 
and get a download of data. Then in most of the cases the connection
gets closed.
If one compares this to IMAP, you make once a connection, authenticate
and select a mailbox. If needed you retrieve data (or send data to the
server). The connection then stays idle for some time and after some
time the IMAP client asks just for updates.

As a model of CPU usage, connection usage and so forth they are 
different. For instance, load-balancing on CPU load would not do it,
since the amount of 'idle' connections in IMAP can occupy the complete
server (max clients) while still the CPU load is very low.
(Just some example).

Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management of Apache HTTP server

View raw message