Mailing List Archive

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 01 June 2003 18:00, Thomas Seifert wrote:

> at first, about logging:
> why is logging only provided through syslog?
> Is it supposed to be faster than logging directly to files?
> how about offering a (second) way to log through a command i.e. using
> cronolog?
>
> Then you don't have to provide an own logging-facility but can use other
> performant tools for it.

At this point the logging system is temporal. It should be rewritten in the
same way of the rest of cherokee, I mean, module based. We should have a
modules for syslog, a module for direct file writting, and so on.

At the begging, I chose the syslog method cuz it's the standard and it has a
good performance. In the current Cherokee version, it's hardcoded.. but it
should be fixed soon. :-)

> ok and secondly, about documentation:
> I'm working on opensource-projects on my own so I know that documentation
> is the part which comes at the very last ;-).
> Are the comments in the conf-file (which already help much) the only
> available documentation?

No, there's a mini tutorial in the "doc" directory.
It's not very extensive.. I know.. but it's better than nothing %-)

It's well known... we all hate write down documentation. '';)

> I'm pretty sure that people which may look into cherokee later will
> appreciate any further documentation, maybe even available on the website
> for looking into it before deciding if to use it.
> A small description of the available handlers might be usefull too, some
> are obvious (like file ;-)) other aren't (like gnomevfs).

Ummm... you're right.
I didn't think about upload it to the website.

I'm going to do it today :))

> KeepAlive-settings (again, ideas taken from apache ;-)):
> how about adding settings for how many seconds to wait for further
> keep-alive-requests

The "timeout" configuration entry do it in the general case. But well, add a
new timeout for keepalive iterations looks ok. I've added it to the TODO
file. :-)

> and how many keep-alive-requests are accepted from a
> user? I don't even know how this is handled currently (though I'm sure that
> I could look into the code ;-)).

It's implemented but has not a configuration entry (what a silly mistake!)
The MAX_KEEP_ALIVE constant (common.h) defines it. :-)

echo "Export max keep alive iterations to config file" >> TODO

> btw, how is it going with the php-module? ;-)

Eh eh.. good question ';-)

It should be the next new feature of Cherokee. I was working on it, reading
php code, and trying to understand the painful API of PHP... but without a
real result (working php handler) until now. I'm going to continue working
on it. It's a very important feature that Cherokee should has ASAP. :-)

BTW, there're people thinking about implement a WebWare [1] handler for
Cherokee. :-))


[1] http://webware.sourceforge.net

- --
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+2h+6VRSCNxlNnu0RAjPOAJ9nS7wc1JRb+ylIxGbUn1STZ+dl2QCdFyOo
16n95Mpa2nCX4M3oxU99N2k=
=Ukcy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi Alo,

thanks for your quick and helpful answers.
I'll probably make the transition for the static contents on my site
at the next weekend. I'll let you know if I stumble about problems
or having further ideas :-).


> At this point the logging system is temporal. It should be rewritten in the
> same way of the rest of cherokee, I mean, module based. We should have a
> modules for syslog, a module for direct file writting, and so on.
>
> At the begging, I chose the syslog method cuz it's the standard and it has a
> good performance. In the current Cherokee version, it's hardcoded.. but it
> should be fixed soon. :-)

Sounds good. Modules are the right way to go :-).

> No, there's a mini tutorial in the "doc" directory.
> It's not very extensive.. I know.. but it's better than nothing %-)

Ah thanks, I missed that one. Yeah, it explains at least the fundamental concepts of the
configuration :-).

> It should be the next new feature of Cherokee. I was working on it, reading
> php code, and trying to understand the painful API of PHP... but without a
> real result (working php handler) until now. I'm going to continue working
> on it. It's a very important feature that Cherokee should has ASAP. :-)

Umm, yes, I can nearly feel the pain ;-). PHP is great but I think the API
for people who want to embed it isn't the simplest thing in the world :).

> BTW, there're people thinking about implement a WebWare [1] handler for
> Cherokee. :-))

Why not? The more modules are available the more people will want to use cherokee :-).



Thomas