Re: ap_expr problems

[Dan Poirier <po...@pobox.com>]

Before we invent yet another expression language, should we consider
using something that already exists?  E.g. lua?

Dan

Re: ap_expr problems

[Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>]

On Friday 05 November 2010, Dan Poirier wrote:
> > Do you want to make lua a requirement for httpd core? Is lua
> > available for all plattforms that httpd runs on? Is lua fast
> > enough for being used in e.g. mod_filter and mod_headers?
> 
> I don't know, maybe someone else can answer these.  And it doesn't
> have to be lua, that was just the first thing that occurred to me.

I don't know either. However I know that mod_lua in its current state 
is not well suited for small single line expressions. My feeling is 
that using lua (or some other language) would require significantly 
more work than recycling ssl_expr. While it may make sense in the long 
run, it would delay 2.4 further.

> > We already have two expression languages in httpd (three if you
> > count RewriteCond). One is in mod_ssl and one in mod_include. We
> > can drop neither for backward compatibility. I think that
> > mod_ssl's parser is much better suited as a general purpose tool
> > than mod_include's parser.
> 
> Must we maintain backward compatibility in 2.4?  3.0?  How long do
> we maintain backward compatibility when moving to a common
> expression format would make the whole configuration more
> understandable in the long term?

For 2.4 definitely. Just look at the discussion about 
Limit/LimitExcept. For 3.0 I don't know. But I want to get 2.4 out 
sooner than later and not push for 3.0 now. So, we can definitely 
consider to move lua into 3.0's core, but now is not the right time.

Re: ap_expr problems

[Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>]

On 05.11.2010 19:07, Bertrand Mansion wrote:
>
> Le 5 nov. 2010 à 16:21, Dan Poirier a écrit :
>
>> On Thu. 2010-11-04 at 06:39 PM EDT, Stefan Fritsch<sf...@sfritsch.de>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 04 November 2010, Dan Poirier wrote:
>>>> Before we invent yet another expression language, should we
>>>> consider using something that already exists?  E.g. lua?
>>>
>>> Do you want to make lua a requirement for httpd core? Is lua available
>>> for all plattforms that httpd runs on? Is lua fast enough for being
>>> used in e.g. mod_filter and mod_headers?
>
> Lua can run on a Canon PowerShot or a Lego NXT, I guess it runs everywhere httpd runs.

I like the possibilities of mod_lua, but I think the expression parser 
cleanup without dependency on lua is agood thing.

Regards,

Rainer

Re: ap_expr problems

[Bertrand Mansion <bm...@mamasam.com>]

Le 5 nov. 2010 à 16:21, Dan Poirier a écrit :

> On Thu. 2010-11-04 at 06:39 PM EDT, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday 04 November 2010, Dan Poirier wrote:
>>> Before we invent yet another expression language, should we
>>> consider using something that already exists?  E.g. lua?
>> 
>> Do you want to make lua a requirement for httpd core? Is lua available 
>> for all plattforms that httpd runs on? Is lua fast enough for being 
>> used in e.g. mod_filter and mod_headers?

Lua can run on a Canon PowerShot or a Lego NXT, I guess it runs everywhere httpd runs.

Re: ap_expr problems

[Dan Poirier <po...@pobox.com>]

On Thu. 2010-11-04 at 06:39 PM EDT, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:

> On Thursday 04 November 2010, Dan Poirier wrote:
>> Before we invent yet another expression language, should we
>> consider using something that already exists?  E.g. lua?
>
> Do you want to make lua a requirement for httpd core? Is lua available 
> for all plattforms that httpd runs on? Is lua fast enough for being 
> used in e.g. mod_filter and mod_headers?

I don't know, maybe someone else can answer these.  And it doesn't have
to be lua, that was just the first thing that occurred to me.

> We already have two expression languages in httpd (three if you count 
> RewriteCond). One is in mod_ssl and one in mod_include. We can drop 
> neither for backward compatibility. I think that mod_ssl's parser is 
> much better suited as a general purpose tool than mod_include's 
> parser.

Must we maintain backward compatibility in 2.4?  3.0?  How long do we
maintain backward compatibility when moving to a common expression
format would make the whole configuration more understandable in the
long term?

Re: ap_expr problems

[Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>]

On Thursday 04 November 2010, Dan Poirier wrote:
> Before we invent yet another expression language, should we
> consider using something that already exists?  E.g. lua?

Do you want to make lua a requirement for httpd core? Is lua available 
for all plattforms that httpd runs on? Is lua fast enough for being 
used in e.g. mod_filter and mod_headers?

We already have two expression languages in httpd (three if you count 
RewriteCond). One is in mod_ssl and one in mod_include. We can drop 
neither for backward compatibility. I think that mod_ssl's parser is 
much better suited as a general purpose tool than mod_include's 
parser.