httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>
Subject Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
Date Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:03:38 GMT
 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Akins, Brian 
> Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Februar 2008 16:44
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
> 
> On 2/15/08 8:13 AM, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" 
> <ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com>
> wrote:
> 
>  
> > Any specific reason why we need to add an hook here and why 
> this cannot be
> > done by the existing provider (interface). I am scared of 
> adding another
> > level of indirection here if it is not really needed and 
> things can be already
> > done with the existing infrastructure.
> 
> 
> I like hooks bcs providers are "one-shot."  I use both, but 
> find my self
> using hooks more and more.
> 
> A good example is the discussion around having stacked providers in
> mod_cache.  If it were a hook, you'd already have that...
> 
> Providers are good when you will have one, and only one, 
> "thing" that needs
> to munge/manipulate/compute like database stuff.  With the 
> proxy stuff, it
> looks like we want "n" things to be able to manipulate the 
> data.  Once you
> make the leap from 1 to 2, might as well make it a hook.

But in the Auth framework we also work with providers and may call
more then one provider per request to do authn / authz. So I guess
this will be also doable. My main point is that I want to avoid
using both hook and provider if not really needed, as it

- creates unneeded overhead which lowers performance
- makes it harder to extend things with own modules as things are
  more complex
- make debugging harder

So as far as possible for solving the problem in a flexible manner
I would like to stick to KISS.

Regards

Rüdiger


Mime
View raw message