Really, this is now in the PMC's court. Doug and Aaron designed the BMX bean structure and module implementation. I'm aware that jfc's crew has also been a consumer of the module, so it already falls into that multi-vendor, multi-use case scenario.
I'll leave this to them to advocate for httpd adoption of the work, I was just the messenger and sometimes-maintainer. As far as well-defined, the existing 'additonal HTML' structure for mod_status essentially sucks; there is no way for mod_status to comprehend the data coming back to it. It simply consists of an HTML text stream. It knows not one thing about the extended html presented by an arbitrary third party module. Moving forwards with your suggestion, it is simple to pass a new 'format' enum to the modules with the callback, so they know it should be plain html, modern html, xml, json, or any other representation we want to add. Modules who don't implement a given value will simply not append their results in a particular format. So if we want to add a particularly well- formed xml for xslt representation of status data sometime in the future, mod_status will not know how to interpret this for other third party mods, and those that aren't patched for the new 'format' value will simply not add results. The bean concept defined to mod_bmx what the data format was. I'm not sure it was comprehensive enough in terms of arrays of arrays or other prospective use cases. E.g. could a mod_status_bmx actually interrogate the bmx providers and offer some legible html status output today or xml for xslt presentation some day in the future? That's a good question and I'd like to hear Aaron's or Doug's thoughts. Bill On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > It all depends on what Bill decides regarding mod_bmx and if > it is something we intent to backport to 2.4.x > > Still not sure on how to *use* BMX, or how other modules > "hook in" (right now we have several modules hook into > mod_status so the "how" is well known and documented), so > I would require some sort of docs in addition to the actual > code, of course. > >> On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Luca Toscano <toscano.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2016-11-30 18:54 GMT+01:00 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>: >> I'm thinking about adding JSON support to mod_status... >> the "plain" version output really stinks and lacks parity >> w/ the info we provide via HTML, and it would be nice >> to produce a really easily parseable format. >> >> Thoughts...? >> >> I know it was extensively discussed, but do we have an agreement about a >> plan to add this feature? :) >> >> Luca >> >> >> >
