You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com> on 2017/01/17 17:35:53 UTC
Re: JSON for mod_status
2016-11-30 18:54 GMT+01:00 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
> I'm thinking about adding JSON support to mod_status...
> the "plain" version output really stinks and lacks parity
> w/ the info we provide via HTML, and it would be nice
> to produce a really easily parseable format.
>
> Thoughts...?
>
I know it was extensively discussed, but do we have an agreement about a
plan to add this feature? :)
Luca
Re: JSON for mod_status
Posted by Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de>.
Nice!
> Am 18.01.2017 um 12:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>
> This is too awesome for words :)
>
>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 4:56 AM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/17/2017 07:33 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> It all depends on what Bill decides regarding mod_bmx and if
>>> it is something we intent to backport to 2.4.x
>>>
>>> Still not sure on how to *use* BMX, or how other modules
>>> "hook in" (right now we have several modules hook into
>>> mod_status so the "how" is well known and documented), so
>>> I would require some sort of docs in addition to the actual
>>> code, of course.
>>
>> Some JFDI in the meantime; https://httpd.apache.org/server-status :)
>> JSON: http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json_status
>>
>> With regards,
>> Daniel.
>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2016-11-30 18:54 GMT+01:00 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
>>>> I'm thinking about adding JSON support to mod_status...
>>>> the "plain" version output really stinks and lacks parity
>>>> w/ the info we provide via HTML, and it would be nice
>>>> to produce a really easily parseable format.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts...?
>>>>
>>>> I know it was extensively discussed, but do we have an agreement about a plan to add this feature? :)
>>>>
>>>> Luca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Stefan Eissing
<green/>bytes GmbH
Hafenstrasse 16
48155 Münster
www.greenbytes.de
Re: JSON for mod_status
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
This is too awesome for words :)
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 4:56 AM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 01/17/2017 07:33 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> It all depends on what Bill decides regarding mod_bmx and if
>> it is something we intent to backport to 2.4.x
>>
>> Still not sure on how to *use* BMX, or how other modules
>> "hook in" (right now we have several modules hook into
>> mod_status so the "how" is well known and documented), so
>> I would require some sort of docs in addition to the actual
>> code, of course.
>
> Some JFDI in the meantime; https://httpd.apache.org/server-status :)
> JSON: http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json_status
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>>
>>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-11-30 18:54 GMT+01:00 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
>>> I'm thinking about adding JSON support to mod_status...
>>> the "plain" version output really stinks and lacks parity
>>> w/ the info we provide via HTML, and it would be nice
>>> to produce a really easily parseable format.
>>>
>>> Thoughts...?
>>>
>>> I know it was extensively discussed, but do we have an agreement about a plan to add this feature? :)
>>>
>>> Luca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: JSON for mod_status
Posted by Marion & Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
++1
:)
Author: jailletc36
Date: Fri Jan 6 07:19:20 2017
New Revision: 1777535
URL:http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1777535&view=rev
Log:
update
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS
URL:http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS?rev=1777535&r1=1777534&r2=1777535&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS Fri Jan 6 07:19:20 2017
@@ -140,6 +140,14 @@ THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED EARLY I
* REST-based administration for existing (balancer/etc) and new dynamic
runtime changes (see above)
+ * Improve the look of generated pages (status, load-balancer...) with dynamic
+ update of the values. Generate HTML5 pages, instead of 3.2, Get rid of XHTML
+ in the generated pages.
+
+ * Add performance monitoring of the server, of each module (?), in order to help
+ understanding what worth looking at in order to improve overall performance.
+ (https://cdn.wp.nginx.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Amplify-Dashboards-page-base-for-filters.png)
+
OLD ISSUES THAT WERE THOUGHT TO BE SHOWSTOPPERS FOR 2.4 BUT OBVIOUSLY WEREN'T:
* Handling of non-trailing / config by non-default handler is broken
Le 18/01/2017 10:56, Daniel Gruno a crit :
> On 01/17/2017 07:33 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> It all depends on what Bill decides regarding mod_bmx and if
>> it is something we intent to backport to 2.4.x
>>
>> Still not sure on how to *use* BMX, or how other modules
>> "hook in" (right now we have several modules hook into
>> mod_status so the "how" is well known and documented), so
>> I would require some sort of docs in addition to the actual
>> code, of course.
> Some JFDI in the meantime; https://httpd.apache.org/server-status :)
> JSON: http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json_status
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-11-30 18:54 GMT+01:00 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
>>> I'm thinking about adding JSON support to mod_status...
>>> the "plain" version output really stinks and lacks parity
>>> w/ the info we provide via HTML, and it would be nice
>>> to produce a really easily parseable format.
>>>
>>> Thoughts...?
>>>
>>> I know it was extensively discussed, but do we have an agreement about a plan to add this feature? :)
>>>
>>> Luca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: JSON for mod_status
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 01/18/2017 03:48 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 01/18/2017 03:19 PM, Luca Toscano wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2017-01-18 10:56 GMT+01:00 Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org
>> <ma...@apache.org>>:
>>
>> On 01/17/2017 07:33 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> > It all depends on what Bill decides regarding mod_bmx and if
>> > it is something we intent to backport to 2.4.x
>> >
>> > Still not sure on how to *use* BMX, or how other modules
>> > "hook in" (right now we have several modules hook into
>> > mod_status so the "how" is well known and documented), so
>> > I would require some sort of docs in addition to the actual
>> > code, of course.
>>
>> Some JFDI in the meantime; https://httpd.apache.org/server-status
>> <https://httpd.apache.org/server-status> :)
>> JSON: http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json_status
>> <http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json_status>
>>
>>
>> Really nice work! I'd really like to see (if the author agrees :P) some
>> mod_lua scripts shipped with the httpd release and referenced in our
>> documentation.
>
> Hey, it's ALv2, always has been - if we wanna ship it, so be it :)
> It's at https://github.com/Humbedooh/server-status at the moment, and
> needs a tiny bit of cleanup if it's to be shipped.
I tidied up the code and refactored the JSON format.
HTML view: http://httpd.apache.org/server-status
JSON: http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json
Extended JSON:
http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json&extended=true (LOT OF
DATA :p)
Feedback/suggestions are most welcome.
I'll likely donate this to httpd after FOSDEM if there's an interest in
that.
With regards,
Daniel.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>>
>> Luca
>>
>
Re: JSON for mod_status
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 01/18/2017 03:19 PM, Luca Toscano wrote:
>
>
> 2017-01-18 10:56 GMT+01:00 Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>>:
>
> On 01/17/2017 07:33 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > It all depends on what Bill decides regarding mod_bmx and if
> > it is something we intent to backport to 2.4.x
> >
> > Still not sure on how to *use* BMX, or how other modules
> > "hook in" (right now we have several modules hook into
> > mod_status so the "how" is well known and documented), so
> > I would require some sort of docs in addition to the actual
> > code, of course.
>
> Some JFDI in the meantime; https://httpd.apache.org/server-status
> <https://httpd.apache.org/server-status> :)
> JSON: http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json_status
> <http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json_status>
>
>
> Really nice work! I'd really like to see (if the author agrees :P) some
> mod_lua scripts shipped with the httpd release and referenced in our
> documentation.
Hey, it's ALv2, always has been - if we wanna ship it, so be it :)
It's at https://github.com/Humbedooh/server-status at the moment, and
needs a tiny bit of cleanup if it's to be shipped.
With regards,
Daniel.
>
> Luca
>
Re: JSON for mod_status
Posted by Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com>.
2017-01-18 10:56 GMT+01:00 Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>:
> On 01/17/2017 07:33 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > It all depends on what Bill decides regarding mod_bmx and if
> > it is something we intent to backport to 2.4.x
> >
> > Still not sure on how to *use* BMX, or how other modules
> > "hook in" (right now we have several modules hook into
> > mod_status so the "how" is well known and documented), so
> > I would require some sort of docs in addition to the actual
> > code, of course.
>
> Some JFDI in the meantime; https://httpd.apache.org/server-status :)
> JSON: http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json_status
>
>
Really nice work! I'd really like to see (if the author agrees :P) some
mod_lua scripts shipped with the httpd release and referenced in our
documentation.
Luca
Re: JSON for mod_status
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 01/17/2017 07:33 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> It all depends on what Bill decides regarding mod_bmx and if
> it is something we intent to backport to 2.4.x
>
> Still not sure on how to *use* BMX, or how other modules
> "hook in" (right now we have several modules hook into
> mod_status so the "how" is well known and documented), so
> I would require some sort of docs in addition to the actual
> code, of course.
Some JFDI in the meantime; https://httpd.apache.org/server-status :)
JSON: http://httpd.apache.org/server-status?view=json_status
With regards,
Daniel.
>
>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-11-30 18:54 GMT+01:00 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
>> I'm thinking about adding JSON support to mod_status...
>> the "plain" version output really stinks and lacks parity
>> w/ the info we provide via HTML, and it would be nice
>> to produce a really easily parseable format.
>>
>> Thoughts...?
>>
>> I know it was extensively discussed, but do we have an agreement about a plan to add this feature? :)
>>
>> Luca
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: JSON for mod_status
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Really, this is now in the PMC's court. Doug and Aaron designed the BMX
bean structure and module implementation. I'm aware that jfc's crew has
also been a consumer of the module, so it already falls into that multi-vendor,
multi-use case scenario.
I'll leave this to them to advocate for httpd adoption of the work, I was just
the messenger and sometimes-maintainer.
As far as well-defined, the existing 'additonal HTML' structure for mod_status
essentially sucks; there is no way for mod_status to comprehend the data
coming back to it. It simply consists of an HTML text stream. It knows not
one thing about the extended html presented by an arbitrary third party
module.
Moving forwards with your suggestion, it is simple to pass a new 'format'
enum to the modules with the callback, so they know it should be plain
html, modern html, xml, json, or any other representation we want to add.
Modules who don't implement a given value will simply not append their
results in a particular format. So if we want to add a particularly well-
formed xml for xslt representation of status data sometime in the future,
mod_status will not know how to interpret this for other third party mods,
and those that aren't patched for the new 'format' value will simply not
add results.
The bean concept defined to mod_bmx what the data format was. I'm
not sure it was comprehensive enough in terms of arrays of arrays or
other prospective use cases. E.g. could a mod_status_bmx actually
interrogate the bmx providers and offer some legible html status
output today or xml for xslt presentation some day in the future? That's
a good question and I'd like to hear Aaron's or Doug's thoughts.
Bill
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> It all depends on what Bill decides regarding mod_bmx and if
> it is something we intent to backport to 2.4.x
>
> Still not sure on how to *use* BMX, or how other modules
> "hook in" (right now we have several modules hook into
> mod_status so the "how" is well known and documented), so
> I would require some sort of docs in addition to the actual
> code, of course.
>
>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-11-30 18:54 GMT+01:00 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
>> I'm thinking about adding JSON support to mod_status...
>> the "plain" version output really stinks and lacks parity
>> w/ the info we provide via HTML, and it would be nice
>> to produce a really easily parseable format.
>>
>> Thoughts...?
>>
>> I know it was extensively discussed, but do we have an agreement about a plan to add this feature? :)
>>
>> Luca
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: JSON for mod_status
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
It all depends on what Bill decides regarding mod_bmx and if
it is something we intent to backport to 2.4.x
Still not sure on how to *use* BMX, or how other modules
"hook in" (right now we have several modules hook into
mod_status so the "how" is well known and documented), so
I would require some sort of docs in addition to the actual
code, of course.
> On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2016-11-30 18:54 GMT+01:00 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
> I'm thinking about adding JSON support to mod_status...
> the "plain" version output really stinks and lacks parity
> w/ the info we provide via HTML, and it would be nice
> to produce a really easily parseable format.
>
> Thoughts...?
>
> I know it was extensively discussed, but do we have an agreement about a plan to add this feature? :)
>
> Luca
>
>
>