"Andy Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>>
>> "Andy Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gal, Developers,
>>>
>>> I'm about to produce a webapp version of the Domino connector for TC4.0,
>>> and I see there isn't an IIS connector. Is anyone working on this? Want
>>> me to take a look?
>>
>> No, I'm not yet working on those. I'm actually concentrating on fixing the
>> library bugs, the required improvements, and its integration with APR, plus
>> a bunch of developer docs which will help in refining/extending the WebApp
>> library API.
>>
>> It would be so cool to be able to have at least a base code on which to work
>> on, as Colin gratefully donated his code for NSAPI.
>>
>> Regarding a long-term plan, I heard Costin and Henri talking about
>> refactorying the JK connector APIs, and using APR, but that actually nothing
>> is ready yet (correct me if I'm wrong)...
>>
>> My alleged thought right now goes to a big input in terms of API design from
>> the JK guys, I believe (but that's my personal feeling) that if a major
>> redesign needs to be done in JK land, we can use some of the bases put in
>> place by WebApp and especially APR, to come out with maybe a new/revised
>> "improved" APR-based module...
>>
>> Let me know your thoughts...
>
> Urm. I'm keen to be guided by people who have a better overview of where
> connectors are headed in general and what needs doing really. My
> priority is to make sure the current Domino/JK connector works OK with
> TC4.0. Once that's nailed I'm open to suggestions. I'd be happy to
> produce a wepapp version of the Domino connector, but I'm also happy to
> undertake any work that needs doing on the IIS connector (I'm not
> suggesting there /is/ work to do on IIS -- it's just something I could
> quite easily do).
I have an idea (doh! that's weird):
AJPv14 and WARP are basically the same exact piece of sh** only organized in
a different way. They do the same stuff, they pass the same data back and
forth, they ARE the same damn thing only with an organizational difference.
For WARP, we started with AJPv20 and AJPv21 (which originated from AJPv11)
and went on from there, for AJPv14, the work was based on AJPv13 (which was
based on AJPv12 and AJPv11)...
SO, damn it, we have two coherent solutions to the same damned problem... It
shouldn't be hard to merge them.
If we merge WARP and AJPv14, and implement it both modules, we will achieve
a number of benefits: both tomcat 4.0 and 3.3 can work with both modules,
plus, on Tomcat 4, we get IIS, DOMINO and a tested NSAPI "for free"...
At the same time, since also JK is moving towards APR, but they're far
behind what WebApp does ATM, let's try to refine/update/change the WebApp
API, already based on APR, and work on it as the APR based connector, when
that is ready, we can think about porting all nice stuff that are still
missing (load balancing, JNI and such), over to the new architecture...
So, IMO, it's a win-win situation... JK can support all web-servers and all
"old" protocols, it's tested, it works, we just need to make it able to talk
the new "AJPv14/WARP" protocol and can be used as the "strong" foundation.
WebApp will talk only "AJPv14/WARP", based on APR, and only ported to Apache
1.3 and 2.0, when we're happy with it, with the 3.3 implementation of
"AJPv14/WARP", with the new/revised/corrected APR-based API, we can start
porting all other stuff over, and in 12 years time we can deprecate the old
one...
Does it make any sense?
> As usual I'm also pondering why I'm spending so much time on IIS and
> Domino when I wouldn't run anything apart from Apache if I ruled the
> world. I wonder what I did in a past life...
:)
Pier
