You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> on 2000/03/11 10:41:04 UTC
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0 STATUS
On 11 Mar 2000 manoj@locus.apache.org wrote:
>...
> work on most, if not all the systems 1.3 did
> Status: Autoconf and APR will get us most of the way there.
>
> - * The module API is a weird combination of the old table and the new
> - hook system. Switch completely to the new hook system
> - Status: Ben Laurie is working on this.
> + * The handler hook needs to use the new registration system
Actually, I jsut realized that we can't do this for the handler. Much like
the create_*_config and merge_*_config functions, the handler is directed
to a specific module. The module invoked is based on r->handler, so we
can't just call the hook and say "whoever can handle this, please do so."
It would seem the module struct is about as small as it will go.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: handler (was: cvs commit: apache-2.0 STATUS)
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:26:17PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> We set up the handler based on a number of rules in the various modules.
> This is done by setting r->handler. When the "handle content" stage is
> performed, we execute the module associated with r->handler.
>
> The current handler logic/setup doesn't allow us to simply throw the stage
> out to the wind and see who happens to respond. We deal with it
> explicitly.
Well, someone should change this then. :)
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0 STATUS
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
> > On 11 Mar 2000 manoj@locus.apache.org wrote:
> > >...
> > > work on most, if not all the systems 1.3 did
> > > Status: Autoconf and APR will get us most of the way there.
> > >
> > > - * The module API is a weird combination of the old table and the new
> > > - hook system. Switch completely to the new hook system
> > > - Status: Ben Laurie is working on this.
> > > + * The handler hook needs to use the new registration system
> >
> > Actually, I jsut realized that we can't do this for the handler. Much like
> > the create_*_config and merge_*_config functions, the handler is directed
> > to a specific module. The module invoked is based on r->handler, so we
> > can't just call the hook and say "whoever can handle this, please do so."
>
> We can't? Why not? (N.B. I'm reading mail backwards and I'm a jetlagged
> zombie, so this may well be a completely moronic question). I agree
> about {create,merge}_*_config, though.
If your a jet-lagged zombie, so am I, because I don't see a problem with
the handler either. :-)
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
handler (was: cvs commit: apache-2.0 STATUS)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > Actually, I jsut realized that we can't do this for the handler. Much like
> > the create_*_config and merge_*_config functions, the handler is directed
> > to a specific module. The module invoked is based on r->handler, so we
> > can't just call the hook and say "whoever can handle this, please do so."
>
> We can't? Why not? (N.B. I'm reading mail backwards and I'm a jetlagged
> zombie, so this may well be a completely moronic question). I agree
> about {create,merge}_*_config, though.
We set up the handler based on a number of rules in the various modules.
This is done by setting r->handler. When the "handle content" stage is
performed, we execute the module associated with r->handler.
The current handler logic/setup doesn't allow us to simply throw the stage
out to the wind and see who happens to respond. We deal with it
explicitly.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0 STATUS
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Greg Stein wrote:
>
> On 11 Mar 2000 manoj@locus.apache.org wrote:
> >...
> > work on most, if not all the systems 1.3 did
> > Status: Autoconf and APR will get us most of the way there.
> >
> > - * The module API is a weird combination of the old table and the new
> > - hook system. Switch completely to the new hook system
> > - Status: Ben Laurie is working on this.
> > + * The handler hook needs to use the new registration system
>
> Actually, I jsut realized that we can't do this for the handler. Much like
> the create_*_config and merge_*_config functions, the handler is directed
> to a specific module. The module invoked is based on r->handler, so we
> can't just call the hook and say "whoever can handle this, please do so."
We can't? Why not? (N.B. I'm reading mail backwards and I'm a jetlagged
zombie, so this may well be a completely moronic question). I agree
about {create,merge}_*_config, though.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER: http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
Coming to ApacheCon? http://ApacheCon.Com/