Adding a connexion-handler hook

[Rodent of Unusual Size <co...@decus.org>]

    A while ago there was some discussion about adding a callback hook
    to the API to allow modules to get access at connexion time.  I
    seem to remember general concensus that it would be a Good
    Thing(tm), but no hard plans.

    I'd rather like to take a crack at this if no-one objects.  But what
    about timing?  Is this a post-1.3 sort of thing?  In other words,
    should I table it until we really start 2.0? <g>

    #ken    :-)}

Re: Adding a connexion-handler hook

[Alexei Kosut <ak...@organic.com>]

On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Marc Slemko wrote:

> > The word is connection, by the way :)
> 
> Are all threads recurring?  <g>  We have been through this before...

Of course they are. Some of us haven't written an actual email to
new-httpd in years. I have a cron job that sends off email I sent to the
list back in 1995, once an hour. You're the first to notice :)

> The word is connexion if you feel like spelling it that way.  Honest, it
> is in the dictionary.  Although some would claim it went out of style
> several thousand years ago...

Ah. But I wasn't saying that connexion wasn't a word, just that it wasn't
the correct word. Apache uses connection exclusively, all throughout the
source. So a "connexion-handler" phase would be incorrect, as Apache
doesn't handle connexions, just connections.

Yeah... that's what I meant. :)

> 
> <RANT TYPE="COMPLETELY UNRELATED"> 
> Grr.  I hate usenet.  400000 articles a
> day of crap and I still have to force the poor box to open wider to cram
> more in.  I remember the days when I got a full newsfeed over a 28.8k
> modem.  That was useful.  
> </RANT>
> 
> 
> 

-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@organic.com>

Re: Adding a connexion-handler hook

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Alexei Kosut wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 
> >     A while ago there was some discussion about adding a callback hook
> >     to the API to allow modules to get access at connexion time.  I
> >     seem to remember general concensus that it would be a Good
> >     Thing(tm), but no hard plans.
> 
> The word is connection, by the way :)

Are all threads recurring?  <g>  We have been through this before...

The word is connexion if you feel like spelling it that way.  Honest, it
is in the dictionary.  Although some would claim it went out of style
several thousand years ago...

<RANT TYPE="COMPLETELY UNRELATED"> 
Grr.  I hate usenet.  400000 articles a
day of crap and I still have to force the poor box to open wider to cram
more in.  I remember the days when I got a full newsfeed over a 28.8k
modem.  That was useful.  
</RANT>

Re: Adding a connexion-handler hook

[Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>]

On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

>     A while ago there was some discussion about adding a callback hook
>     to the API to allow modules to get access at connexion time.  I
>     seem to remember general concensus that it would be a Good
>     Thing(tm), but no hard plans.

The word is connection, by the way :)

>     I'd rather like to take a crack at this if no-one objects.  But what
>     about timing?  Is this a post-1.3 sort of thing?  In other words,
>     should I table it until we really start 2.0? <g>

It's a 2.0 thing. It goes with the redesign of the request part of the
API we've talked about.

It sounds like a trivial thing, but if you consider it, it's actually
complex; because an Apache connection can *end* in so many ways, you
have to ensure that any way the connection ends, anything set up in a
connection-start phase is correctly taken down.

Its similar to the reason we don't support keep-alive on failed
requests with an entity body.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>      The Apache HTTP Server
URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/   http://www.apache.org/

Re: Adding a connexion-handler hook

[Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@lerdorf.on.ca>]

> I want a once-per-child init phase.  So do others... can we get it in 1.3?
> The canonical example use is to open a connection to a database.

I have about 1000 users of mod_php who would kill for this functionality
as well.

-Rasmus

Re: Adding a connexion-handler hook

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

I want a once-per-child init phase.  So do others... can we get it in 1.3?
The canonical example use is to open a connection to a database.

My latest example is a method of reliably rotating logs after a graceful
restart.  Each child acquires a shared lock on the log file, they do this
during the child init.  The log rotation program -USR1s the server then
tries to acquire an exclusive lock on the file.  It'll succeed only when
the last child is done. 

Dean

On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

>     A while ago there was some discussion about adding a callback hook
>     to the API to allow modules to get access at connexion time.  I
>     seem to remember general concensus that it would be a Good
>     Thing(tm), but no hard plans.
> 
>     I'd rather like to take a crack at this if no-one objects.  But what
>     about timing?  Is this a post-1.3 sort of thing?  In other words,
>     should I table it until we really start 2.0? <g>
> 
>     #ken    :-)}
>