httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Issac Goldstand <>
Subject Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?
Date Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:46:49 GMT

Paul Querna wrote:
> Akins, Brian wrote:
>> On 3/26/08 9:06 AM, "Nick Kew" <> wrote:
>>> There seems to be a demand for dynamic per-request configuration,
>>> as evidenced by the number of users hacking it with mod_rewrite,
>>> and the other very limited tools available.  Modern mod_rewrite
>>> usage commonly looks like programming, but it's not designed as
>>> a programming language.  Result: confused and frustrated users.
>> This is what I had in mind when I suggested having <Lua> blocks of 
>> code.  No
>> need to invent a new language when a perfectly fine one exists...
> +1, and embed Lua in the core, and a dozen problems just like this are 
> solved.

-0.5  PLEASE not in the core.  Make mod_wombat a standard module and 
part of the default moduleset, whatever, but let's not make more core 
dependencies, please?!?

If I get voted down (which is still pretty likely especially if all the 
pro-lua'ers will be at the hackathon, whereas I won't :)) at least 
consider trying to limit the embedded interpreter to the parent process 
and preventing it from being inherited by the children, if possible (to 
remove completely unnecessary bloating)

> Every complicated 'directive' is trying to be a programing language in 
> the config file, but they aren't.
> Just look at SSLRequire, Rewrite*, MPM Process/Thread Management, Filter 
> chaining, large Auth{N,Z} chains, and more.
> Imagine them not sucking.

Agreed.  That's why we have modules like mod_wombat and mod_perl which 
give you *better* directives.  More flexible directives.  And in 
addition, the learning curve to learn to use these powerful directives 
is still optional (ok - rewrite's a pretty damn big curve itself, but 
many of the other above items aren't anywhere near as bad).


View raw message