OK, so maybe the term "DocumentRoot" is wrong, maybe "ResourceRoot" would be
more appropriate for the future? I mean imagine we have a module that reads
directly from a database, then maybe the configuration would be to specify
the database and host?
david
> No, DocumentRoot is the root of the resources. It is _not_ HTTP specific.
> It _is_ core_fs specific (going back to the modular filesystem debate :-)
>
> > SMTP, POP, SNMP, and NNTP wouldn't use it. I could see FTP using it, but
I
> > probably would have used a different name anyway.
>
> No. First, FTP likely needs it's own host block (servername:21). Second,
you
> don't want to reimplement core_fs for a half-dozen protocols like FTP and
Gopher
> when you still get right down to a resource.
>
> Second, the other's you mention are _not_ resource-oriented. I'm still
figuring
> Apache serves resources. Those other URI's specify transients. You can't
simply
> nttp://server/somethingspecific and get what you want.
>
> Long term, perhaps an entirely different core can communicate those types
of
> transient connections, but we have a number of resource-based protocols to
> consider first.
>
> Bill
>
