On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 06:56:36PM +0200, Jacek Prucia wrote:
> > > I think current flood (tried HEAD) have problems with veryfing
> > > responses.
> [... cut ...]
> > I will take a look at this patch and apply in the next few hours.
>
> Just a reminder :)
committed, thanks for the reminder and for the patch! :)
> Yeah, but I have to get more familiar with flood source code. There are
> a few places that IMO need a rethinking. On the other hand -- I might be
> plain wrong, so let me just play a bit more with the code.
Your input would be appreciated, and we welcome the patches.
> Flood needs more testers/developers. This list is too quiet, while
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (where I'm lurking) has a lot of people participating.
> Building a functional beta release will probably help that. Besides
> flood binary we could install FAQ and example configuration files as
> documentation. It look's like flood needs (just like every nice system
> stand-alone binary) a plain man page. I'll try to prepare one, just when
> get some more free time :)
I agree that working toward a beta might be a good plan. Right now
I think the main obstacle to simple usability is the interface. For
obvious reasons we haven't tried to make a polished interface, and
IMHO that tends to impose unnecessary skill requirements on potential
users. Ideally someone will come along and write a nice gui frontend
that spits out XML directly in to flood.
On the technical side, some of the things that remain to be done are:
- better modularity of the optional routines (possibly a runtime
dynamic linking feature if warranted)
- a way to run multiple verification tasks on the same response
(we have been looking to incorporate something similiar to httpd 2.0's
filters to accomplish this, but that is a lot of work and possibly
a redesign for this more general case)
- more optional routines (better verification routines, etc...)
- other features:
- basic authentiation
- etc...
-aaron
