IIS Connector for TC4.0

[Andy Armstrong <an...@tagish.com>]

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?

Bye.

-- 
Andy Armstrong, Tagish

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

"Andy Armstrong" <an...@tagish.com> wrote:

> Andy Armstrong 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?
> 
> (Sorry to follow myself up)
> 
> Off-list I've had it explained to me that jk is still valid for TC4.0,
> so I'll concentrate on testing the jk version of the Domino connector
> with 4.0. Sorry for the confusion (all mine).

Well, the effort for bringing any connector to WebApp is kinda big, I mean,
basically every API used there MUST follow APR counterparts (no ANSI-C), so
I'd see it as a long-term plan for APR-ization of the connector world...

    Pier

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[Andy Armstrong <an...@tagish.com>]

Andy Armstrong 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?

(Sorry to follow myself up)

Off-list I've had it explained to me that jk is still valid for TC4.0,
so I'll concentrate on testing the jk version of the Domino connector
with 4.0. Sorry for the confusion (all mine).

-- 
Andy Armstrong, Tagish

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

"cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> 
>> 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...
> 
> 
> Pier, APR is a library of portable code - not a new 'architecture'. Mod_jk
> has an API that is used with 4 different protocols ( webapp will be the
> 5th ), 4 different web servers. This architecture is pretty well tested
> and stable.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your idea - of moving all this into webapp,
> instead of moving warp as a jk protocol ( or integrate it with ajp14).

I'm just saying that APR is not the easiest bitch to handle on this
planet... And I've given my full support since it seems that you guys want
to refactor the JK api and use APR... Since there is already a working
connector based on APR, and you're refactorying the JK API, I thought it
might have been wise to use the already working APR-ized connector as a
starting point. I don't mind rewriting the full WebApp core if it's worth
to, it doesn't scare me...

I'm just trying to be the nice guy around here, simply saying "part of it is
there, and if you guys want, I'm more than welcome to turn the sucker inside
out"... Trying to avoid duplicate work...

If that's against your way of working, well, I'm just going to go ahead my
own way. I simply thought that the one mentioned above was a win-win
situation...

But as always, if you don't want to, well, whatever :) We're just going to
go on and re-duplicate work over and over again... WebApp, as JServ, (and
3.3 for you?) is my baby, and I'm not going to abandon it, even if you guys
kick me out :)

I just said that if you want to APR-ize JK and change the API, well, maybe
we can see to lay the grounds for new foundations?

    Pier

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[cm...@yahoo.com]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:

> 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...


Pier, APR is a library of portable code - not a new 'architecture'. Mod_jk
has an API that is used with 4 different protocols ( webapp will be the
5th ), 4 different web servers. This architecture is pretty well tested
and stable.

I'm not sure I understand your idea - of moving all this into webapp,
instead of moving warp as a jk protocol ( or integrate it with ajp14).


Costin





>
>
> 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
>

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

"Andy Armstrong" <an...@tagish.com> wrote:

> Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>> 
>> "Andy Armstrong" <an...@tagish.com> 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

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[Andy Armstrong <an...@tagish.com>]

Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> 
> "Andy Armstrong" <an...@tagish.com> 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).

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...

-- 
Andy Armstrong, Tagish

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

"cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> 
>> Anyway, switching to APR is not that easy (IMO), if you want to take
>> advantage of ALL which is provided by APR (I'm deprecating ANSI-C here).
> 
> This is an incremental process, and can only increase the stability of jk.

You'll see :) APR is nice, but I believe that, as it's wrong to write C++
code in Java, so it's wrong to "port" stuff to APR... Once you discover the
APR platform, if you want to take full advantage of it, you have to THINK
APR...

>>> Refactoring/cleaning of jk - one part will be done by the move to APR
>>> ( of course ), there are some optimizations and improvements in the jni
>>> connector I am planning ( also after APR is in ), and some of the webapp
>>> API ( and docs :-) could also help a lot.
>> 
>> DOH! I'm saying, let's refactor WebApp how you guys want it... In the past 6
>> months I got to know APR quite well, on the other hand, you guys have more
>> experience on the different web-servers... We have a working APR-based
>> implementation, let's just put it together in a nice way so that it fits
>> BOTH needs...
> 
> It doesn't make too much sense. You're saying we should use WebApp because
> it already uses APR, and port back all the protocols and modules to it.

I'm saying that, since in your previous messages you said you wanted to
"refactor" the JK api, and "port" it to APR, well, why not considering a new
planning ground?

The WebApp API at the moment is _so_ tiny that can be changed, revolted,
destroyed and rebuilt with no problems in a reasonable amount of time...

> I don't know - if using APR is so difficult that it's easier to port all
> the modules to webapp rather than replace the C functions with the APR
> equivalent in jk - then maybe we should thing again about using APR.

Your choice... Mine was to use APR as my "platform" forgetting everything I
knew about C...

> But my impression so far is that APR is quite easy to use and very close
> to the current abstractions used in jk.

You're welcome to go ahead and do whatever you want... I'm not vetoing (as
always)... I'm just being propositive...

    Pier (the nice guy?)

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[cm...@yahoo.com]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:

> Anyway, switching to APR is not that easy (IMO), if you want to take
> advantage of ALL which is provided by APR (I'm deprecating ANSI-C here).

This is an incremental process, and can only increase the stability of jk.

> > Refactoring/cleaning of jk - one part will be done by the move to APR
> > ( of course ), there are some optimizations and improvements in the jni
> > connector I am planning ( also after APR is in ), and some of the webapp
> > API ( and docs :-) could also help a lot.
>
> DOH! I'm saying, let's refactor WebApp how you guys want it... In the past 6
> months I got to know APR quite well, on the other hand, you guys have more
> experience on the different web-servers... We have a working APR-based
> implementation, let's just put it together in a nice way so that it fits
> BOTH needs...

It doesn't make too much sense. You're saying we should use WebApp because
it already uses APR, and port back all the protocols and modules to it.

I don't know - if using APR is so difficult that it's easier to port all
the modules to webapp rather than replace the C functions with the APR
equivalent in jk - then maybe we should thing again about using APR.

But my impression so far is that APR is quite easy to use and very close
to the current abstractions used in jk.

Costin

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

"cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My view:
> 
> It should happen only after 3.3 (and 4.0) is released, switching to APR is
> reasonably easy ( IMHO ), adding warp protocol is doable ( but require
> some changes in the request representation to use the same struct as the other
> jk modules ).

Well, for 4.0 it's pretty easy... It doesn't ship with a connector, only the
WARP java counterpart... I don't want to touch 3.3 in terms of their plans.

Anyway, switching to APR is not that easy (IMO), if you want to take
advantage of ALL which is provided by APR (I'm deprecating ANSI-C here).

> Integrating WARP and AJP14 seems easy ( technically - there are many
> common things ), but it'll require some 'negotiation' - and I hope some
> real community involvment.

C'mon... It _IS_ the easiest thing... We just need to adjust those routines
to read/send packets, and what packet is used for what... The easiest thing
is to implement the real protocol... All hard work is about "how" that data
is organized within the respective modules, not how to grab it and put it on
the network... And being the author of 2 out of 3 connectors on this
project, I know what I'm talking about :) :) :)

> Refactoring/cleaning of jk - one part will be done by the move to APR
> ( of course ), there are some optimizations and improvements in the jni
> connector I am planning ( also after APR is in ), and some of the webapp
> API ( and docs :-) could also help a lot.

DOH! I'm saying, let's refactor WebApp how you guys want it... In the past 6
months I got to know APR quite well, on the other hand, you guys have more
experience on the different web-servers... We have a working APR-based
implementation, let's just put it together in a nice way so that it fits
BOTH needs...

> And of course, I'm happy to see both Pier and Henri are open.

DOH! I've always been... :)

    Pier

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[cm...@yahoo.com]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:

> 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...

My view:

It should happen only after 3.3 (and 4.0) is released, switching to APR is
reasonably easy ( IMHO ), adding warp protocol is doable ( but require
some changes in the request representation to use the same struct as the other
jk modules ).

Integrating WARP and AJP14 seems easy ( technically - there are many
common things ), but it'll require some 'negotiation' - and I hope some
real community involvment.

Refactoring/cleaning of jk - one part will be done by the move to APR
( of course ), there are some optimizations and improvements in the jni
connector I am planning ( also after APR is in ), and some of the webapp
API ( and docs :-) could also help a lot.

And of course, I'm happy to see both Pier and Henri are open.

Costin

Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

"Andy Armstrong" <an...@tagish.com> 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...

    Pier