The problem with mod_dav..

[Karl Southern <th...@blueyonder.co.uk>]

.. is that if you want to add further methods then mod_dav itself needs
to be modified. I spoke briefly with Nick on IRC a few days ago and the
inference appeared to be that I was right and things needed to change
with mod_dav. Or I needed to basically emulate half of the behaviour
found in mod_dav already. Which seems to be pointless.

Right now I've only got one /partially/-sane idea whereby mod_dav gets
completely ripped to pieces and the provider api gets replaced by a new
one where a provider module can itself register functions against methods
i.e. something like dav_hook_reg("METHODNAME", functionpointer, ...)
which would register an entry in a linked list, for that provider,
within mod_dav. The mod_dav handler would then traverse this list and
execute the relevant hook(s).

Can anyone see any big flaws with that? Other than breaking every dav
provider?

Regards,
Karl

Re: The problem with mod_dav..

[Karl Southern <th...@blueyonder.co.uk>]

Nick Kew wrote:
> However, if you're suggesting improvements to mod_dav, you should
> really be on dev@httpd, which is where any changes would have to
> be decided
And I was thinking about posting there as well.. "Meh". I'll start
hammering out a version that does what I want and see what dev@httpd says :)

Re: The problem with mod_dav..

[Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:30:59 +0000
Karl Southern <th...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> .. is that if you want to add further methods then mod_dav itself
> needs to be modified. I spoke briefly with Nick on IRC a few days ago
> and the inference appeared to be that I was right and things needed
> to change with mod_dav. Or I needed to basically emulate half of the
> behaviour found in mod_dav already. Which seems to be pointless.

I'm sure I didn't put it quite like that.  But I do agree that mod_dav
could use some more work in places:-)

> Right now I've only got one /partially/-sane idea whereby mod_dav gets
> completely ripped to pieces and the provider api gets replaced by a
> new one where a provider module can itself register functions against
> methods i.e. something like dav_hook_reg("METHODNAME",
> functionpointer, ...) which would register an entry in a linked list,
> for that provider, within mod_dav. The mod_dav handler would then
> traverse this list and execute the relevant hook(s).
> 
> Can anyone see any big flaws with that? Other than breaking every dav
> provider?

Not at 11:40 on a sunday night after a rather pleasant rioja:-)
Though ISTR somewhere in mod_dav where that could indeed make sense.

However, if you're suggesting improvements to mod_dav, you should
really be on dev@httpd, which is where any changes would have to
be decided.

-- 
Nick Kew

Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/