Hi Harrie,
I have only briefly looked through your multi protocol usage analysis.
Thanks for driving this forward. My main comments thus far are:
- Is the "state record" you have broken out primarily for authentication?
There is a hint that it is for any long-lived protocol state, but that it
must have a lifetime shorter than the connection. It wasn't clear if a
notes like structure would be used to extend the state record, or if it
should be subclassed.
- Apache doesn't support UDP or any non-TCP protocol very well. This may
have impact on the above "state record", since in the case of UDP it may
have a lifetime longer than the connection, depending on the upper layer
protocol and implementation. e.g. The concept of a complete application
exchange over udp could involve many separate PDU exchanges, each using a
new or different UDP connection. UDP also impacts the design of apache, in
that a sequence of related PDUs will be received by different child
processes.
- Apache includes a shared memory library. But apache-style pools are
needed in shared memory, to facilitate placing things like the state record
into shared memory when needed. And being able use the ap_p* functions
regardless of where the pool lives.
thanks,
-david
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harrie
> Hazewinkel
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 19:18
> To: Apache Development
> Subject: Apache 2.0 for multi protocol usage
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I have done some research in order to check whether Apache 2.0
> would be suitable for multi protocol usage. Therefore,
> tomorrow 9:00 April 5 a BoF (BOF10) is organised to discuss
> a proposed design.
>
> The results and a proposed design for Apache is in the attached
> document and a server running with this concept is at
> http://klomp.covalent.net:8080/ (Ryan Bloom made the patch).
>
> I would like to invite anyone interested to join
> in discussing this topic,
>
> Harrie
