You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by di...@covalent.net on 2002/07/10 12:26:09 UTC
The word on: adding modules
Right now, as devlopers, we have a whole range of methods of adding in a
module; from hacking it in, copying it into an existing modules/*
directory (e.g. auth, mappers), APXS all the way, down to its own
directory with a little config.m4.
When documenting 'How to add your modules to apache 2.0' what should be
official word - i.e. what do we want the instructions on a random
modules.apache.org or sourceforge module to say:
1. APXS prefered
apxs -c mod_foo.c bar.c comms.c
Or, if you need it,
2. module/foo directory with Makefile.in/config.m4
as to allow more Configure(ation) also for the simple case ? I am looking
for 'the word' :-) as right now the 1.3 situation is messy: dso, static,
apxs, hack modules,c - and would like to some more guidance for 2.0.
Opinions ? Fears ?
Dw
--
Dirk-Willem van Gulik
Re: The word on: adding modules
Posted by Harrie Hazewinkel <ha...@mod-snmp.com>.
HI,
I am probably not speaking for most of the modules. I have been doing
patching of Apache forever, since otherwise certain
information/functionality
from Apache cannot be done in an SNMP managed way by MOD-SNMP.
Harrie
--On Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:26 PM +0200 dirkx@covalent.net wrote:
>
> Right now, as devlopers, we have a whole range of methods of adding in a
> module; from hacking it in, copying it into an existing modules/*
> directory (e.g. auth, mappers), APXS all the way, down to its own
> directory with a little config.m4.
>
> When documenting 'How to add your modules to apache 2.0' what should be
> official word - i.e. what do we want the instructions on a random
> modules.apache.org or sourceforge module to say:
>
> 1. APXS prefered
>
> apxs -c mod_foo.c bar.c comms.c
>
I would think that the most prefered method could be APXS.
WHy do I think this??
1)
For most users it is simple to do:
./configure --enable-module=so ; make ; make install
Followed by building a module with APXS.
2)
On some systems their is now an Apache already available and thus also
APXS. On those systems an user adding a module can easily use APXS
without any fiddling in Apache code/directories.
> Or, if you need it,
>
> 2. module/foo directory with Makefile.in/config.m4
This would always require a user to compile a module with compiling
Apache as well. APXS could avoid this, if he can retrieve binaries
somewhere else of Apache (like is provided by some companies)
>
> as to allow more Configure(ation) also for the simple case ? I am looking
> for 'the word' :-) as right now the 1.3 situation is messy: dso, static,
> apxs, hack modules,c - and would like to some more guidance for 2.0.
>
> Opinions ? Fears ?
OK, the above opinion does not mean that I think patching should not
be done to the apache core. From a viewpoint of MOD-SNMP, I still
will do it, unless some parts of the code will be made in such a
way that modules can dynamically change/tune the configuration
without restarting the server.
(This is not ment to start discussing dynamic configuration without
restarting, since I know that manye of you oppose this anyway.
With or without good reasoning from those.)
Harrie
Internet Management Consulting
mailto:harrie@mod-snmp.com http ://www.mod-snmp.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management to the Apache server.
Re: The word on: adding modules
Posted by Harrie Hazewinkel <ha...@mod-snmp.com>.
HI,
I am probably not speaking for most of the modules. I have been doing
patching of Apache forever, since otherwise certain
information/functionality
from Apache cannot be done in an SNMP managed way by MOD-SNMP.
Harrie
--On Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:26 PM +0200 dirkx@covalent.net wrote:
>
> Right now, as devlopers, we have a whole range of methods of adding in a
> module; from hacking it in, copying it into an existing modules/*
> directory (e.g. auth, mappers), APXS all the way, down to its own
> directory with a little config.m4.
>
> When documenting 'How to add your modules to apache 2.0' what should be
> official word - i.e. what do we want the instructions on a random
> modules.apache.org or sourceforge module to say:
>
> 1. APXS prefered
>
> apxs -c mod_foo.c bar.c comms.c
>
I would think that the most prefered method could be APXS.
WHy do I think this??
1)
For most users it is simple to do:
./configure --enable-module=so ; make ; make install
Followed by building a module with APXS.
2)
On some systems their is now an Apache already available and thus also
APXS. On those systems an user adding a module can easily use APXS
without any fiddling in Apache code/directories.
> Or, if you need it,
>
> 2. module/foo directory with Makefile.in/config.m4
This would always require a user to compile a module with compiling
Apache as well. APXS could avoid this, if he can retrieve binaries
somewhere else of Apache (like is provided by some companies)
>
> as to allow more Configure(ation) also for the simple case ? I am looking
> for 'the word' :-) as right now the 1.3 situation is messy: dso, static,
> apxs, hack modules,c - and would like to some more guidance for 2.0.
>
> Opinions ? Fears ?
OK, the above opinion does not mean that I think patching should not
be done to the apache core. From a viewpoint of MOD-SNMP, I still
will do it, unless some parts of the code will be made in such a
way that modules can dynamically change/tune the configuration
without restarting the server.
(This is not ment to start discussing dynamic configuration without
restarting, since I know that manye of you oppose this anyway.
With or without good reasoning from those.)
Harrie
Internet Management Consulting
mailto:harrie@mod-snmp.com http ://www.mod-snmp.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management to the Apache server.