On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 11:43:33PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >... > Think _lightweight_ guys ... if this gets unmanageable, it might need to > become it's own project.
I think lightweight in terms of "HTTP and its extensions (HTTPS, DAV, etc)" *only*. Once you move into other protocols, then the whole concept falls apart. Consider FTP: it requires *two* connections, and sometimes a *listener*. That is just Way Too Different. No... *just* HTTP in my book. The things a client will do: proxy, auth, ?? And using our bucket/brigade design for efficiency, and using filters for code clarity / modularization. > And I agree with the assertion that APR = Portability Runtime, > APR-UTIL = Portable Runtime Utilities. We can extend that just as long > as we remember that APR (primary) never contains anything except portability, Agreed. > and APR-UTIL shouldn't grow in -huge- chunks (if it exceeds 10k lines of code, > it probably warrents it's own codebase.) > > Sure sounds like apr-client could fit the bill. Agreed on both counts. Neon 0.15.3 is around 12 kloc. Removing duplication with existing APR(UTIL) stuff, I figure that we could implement similar functionality in about 7 kloc. But we also have some advantages to start with: from scratch with lots of prior work to learn from (what is good, what is bad), and lots of code to steal from proxy, flood, and httpd. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
