Re: [Proposal] "Relayed" Apache API Project

[Pierpaolo Fumagalli <pi...@apache.org>]

I'm forwarding your mail to new-httpd@apache.org, where we're discussing
the new protocol...

	Pier

rtwatson@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> I haven't kept up on changes to RMI-IIOP since the summer, but last I
> worked on this you could write a server that could receive simuilataneous
> requests from RMI-JRNP and RMI-IIOP clients.  As for the client, it must
> decide which protocol to call through.  I think you could also build a
> client with both bindings, but you would have to have some logic to decide
> this protocol to call through at run-time.   Neither of these is too hard
> to do, but not may people were doing it last summer so I would expect to
> encounter bugs where the code paths have not been heavily travelled.
> 
> Tom
> 
> Tom Watson
> rtwatson@us.ibm.com
> Sr. Software Engineer
> IBM - Center for XML Technology
> 10275 N. De Anza Blvd
> Cupertino, CA 95014
> 408/777-5820
> 
> Pierpaolo Fumagalli <pi...@apache.org> on 01/29/2000 02:18:13 PM
> 
> To:   Apache Committers <co...@apache.org>
> cc:   Tom Watson/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> Subject:  Re: [Proposal] "Relayed" Apache API Project
> 
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> >
> > Ben Laurie wrote:
> > >
> > > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > > > The "Apache Relay Protocol" could be based on existing AJP, or based
> on
> > > > more standard full-duplex protocols such as IIOP or anything else.
> > >
> > > CORBA! Yes, this would be a nice flexible approach. I'm not sure if
> > > there are performance issues, though?
> >
> > On this list there should be Tom (Watson) that partecipated in the
> > development of RMI-over-IIOP... I'm sure he knows more about this.
> 
> I don't know wehter Tom is on this list or not, so I'm CCing this msg to
> him.
> As far as I know (I had to do booth duty at JavaONE on RMI-IIOP) the
> idea of using IIOP as a transport layer for module-relying, is a good
> one.
> Using IIOP, then, would allow us to use CORBA on one side, and RMI (wich
> is, IMVHO much simpler) on the JAVA side.
> IIOP is a good protocol, and, even if something could be developed to
> achieve better performances in our specific HTTP case, I think that the
> effort for building such protocol would be great (not for the Java part,
> but for the C part, dealing w/ multi-threaded/multi-process
> architectures is not an easy task, expecially when we want to have
> "human portable" code).
> I know, though, that much of the work has already been done in the 2.0
> version of HTTPd, so, I would like to hear more comments from some of
> you C gurus (it's true, I wrote the first mod_jserv, but really never
> understood what I was doing :).
> 
> > > I'd be interested in working on this.
> >
> > That'd be extermely cool.
> 
> I can't put much effort in that, but it's one of the stuff that are
> currently missing from Apache.
> 
>      Pier
> 
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -          P              I              E              R          -
> stable structure erected over water to allow the docking of seacraft
> <ma...@betaversion.org>    <http://www.betaversion.org/~pier/>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> - ApacheCON Y2K: Come to the official Apache developers conference -
> -------------------- <http://www.apachecon.com> --------------------


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-          P              I              E              R          -
stable structure erected over water to allow the docking of seacraft
<ma...@betaversion.org>    <http://www.betaversion.org/~pier/>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
- ApacheCON Y2K: Come to the official Apache developers conference -
-------------------- <http://www.apachecon.com> --------------------