On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 10:14:18AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > Um... let's not forget that you haven't posted the patch(es) to new-httpd
> > yet (i.e. most of us haven't seen them). It should not be committed until
> > that happens. I think there are a number of concerns that people have (Roy,
> > myself) with the proposed design.
>
> The patch was posted when we posted that we had a server running with the
> patch. A version that compiles and runs against HEAD can be found at
> http://klomp.covalent.net:8080.
What MSGID or subject line? I can't find it. And I don't see a patch on that
web server (it is just a blank page).
> > For myself, I find the state_rec to be superfluous, and the overall intent
> > feels like forcing some kind of commonality between protocols rather than
> > providing a structure for multi-protocol (and then building on that). If
> > pieces of protocols can be shared, then share the functionality, but don't
> > put them into request_rec simply because two protocols happen to use them.
> >
> > Ideally, request_rec would contain only a few items. Things like a pool, the
> > connection it is associated with, and a void* for the protocol-private
> > information.
>
> I agree, that should be the goal, but it is a large goal. This paper and
> the corresponding patch are a first step. We are moving in the right
> direction, but we don't pretend to doing everything required.
It isn't a large goal. All you need to do is call request_rec "http
specific" and introduce "struct ap_request" for the common piece. IOW, don't
try to trim down request_rec (and ALL users), but introduce the new record.
We can then discuss what goes into ap_request. It can be quite small and
clean.
And punt that darn state_rec thing.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
