Re: [Mod-c-users] some stuff

[Matej U. <mat...@gm...>]

On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:57 -0300, Gonzalo Arana wrote:
> I agree about making it optional.  I am thinking in something like:
> Cache non LoadEHTML'es files as well, but those are checked on each hit.

AutoCacheEHTMLFiles directive?

There is a catch with the upper directive:

If we decide to use the directive on a per .htaccess basis, we'll have
to make sure that every access to lib_cache is synchronized - regardless
of whether the option is turned off for all directories or not (the
catch is it's hard to know whether the option is turned off for all
directories or not...) Do you see what I'm trying to say?

But if we make the upper directive global, we could know for sure that
no libs will be added at any time - hence, we could use the current way
of handling with the cache.


In any event, you are right with synchronization: if we decide to put
EHTML files into the cache at 'runtime', we'll have to add some
functions (or modify existent - although I prefer the former) which
would work with the lib_cache in a thread-safe manner.

> 
> Security comes to my mind in order to tell me NOT to process ehtml
> requests that are not LoadEHTML'ed (not sure why yet).  Perhaps we
> could disable (via an apache directive) on-demand dlopen/dlsym.

AllowLoadedEHTMLsOnly directive?

Sure, this is a very important feature. EHTML is dangerous and perhaps
some people would not trust everyone to add their EHTML applications
onto their web servers...

What about a DontExecuteEHTML directive (on a per .htaccess basis)? It
could prevent execution of EHTML in selected directories.

> WIth current scheme, you are right.  I was not aware that I was
> thinking in caching all requests (my mind works in misterious ways
> :D).  If we cache ehtml dlopen/dlsym on demand, this should be a
> per-server cache.

Well, there will be as many copies of the cache as there are child
processes created by HTTPD.

There is no problem with creating one at configuration-time - it will
get copied by the OS when child processes are hooked. (I guess :P)

> If we cache per-request, we do have to worry :(.  Sory to bring this
> up again :(.

Yeah, sure you're right. That's what 

> 
> Perhaps shall we shift this design threads to mod-c-dev mailing list?

I have mailed a copy of this mail to the users list (I think we won't
have a lot of users anyways, so we can use the users list for stuff like
that). I prefer to have as little mailing lists to worry about as
possible ;-)

I will mail the users list from now on.


Enjoy,
---
Matej