[PATCH 00/13] Replace mongoose with civetweb.
Chris Johns
chrisj at rtems.org
Tue Apr 26 02:51:59 UTC 2016
On 26/04/2016 07:22, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Agreed 100%!
>
> NTP has an RSB recipe and there are others for various libraries which
> should be good examples. Shouldn't take long to do the recipe. Just ask
> questions rather than getting stuck.
>
> On Apr 25, 2016 7:03 PM, "Gedare Bloom" <gedare at rtems.org
> <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org
> <mailto:joel at rtems.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Christian Mauderer
> > <christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Essentially I agree that it would be nice to build civetweb as an
> >> external library especially with the different network stacks in
> mind.
> >> But there are some points that keep me from doing it:
> >>
> >> 1. I have really no Idea what would be necessary to build it as an
> >> upstream project using RSB. If that are only something like
> three simple
> >> steps, it should be possible to squeeze it in the little time budget
> >> that is left for the project. If I first have to analyze and
> change a
> >> lot of RSB, it would be challenging.
> >>
> > FWIW I think this can be a secondary goal. Switching over to the real
> > upstream project with proper licensing is important.
I see both as equally important and once the switch is made we have an
on going liability in the project to keep the packaging maintained so
considering it a bit more I suppose the long term issue is actually more
important to me.
> >
> > When we do this, we incur some burden of "retraining" users to
> consider
> > a webserver an external addon. But that is the direction I think
> we want
> > to head with httpd, telnetd, ftpd, etc. So it is a good long term
> goal.
Agreed.
> >
> >>
> >> Chris, I think you know the RSB best: What steps do you think
> would be
> >> necessary?
> >>
> >
> > Chris...
> >
There are a number of examples that show how to do this. Ping me if you
need specific help. Gedare has highlighted NTP and there is also NetNSMP.
> >>
> >> 2. Currently there is one test case for mghttpd
> (libtests/mghttpd01).
> >> This is one of the few tests that check some networking functions in
> >> RTEMS.
I would be concerned if the only way we can do network testing is to
consume a 3prd party package's source into RTEMS. :)
> Further we should not loose the ability to test software
> when it
> >> is build with RSB.
I agree.
> How would we handle tests for software in RSB?
> >>
> >
> > That's a Chris question. We should aim to have tests which run with
> > either network stack for RSB built network services. This is a good
> > requirement on the plan to moving to separately built network stacks
> > and services.
Network testing is an open topic as is vertically integrated packages.
The testing issues exists with libbsd, lwip and the in-tree stack once
we move out of the source tree. As we flesh out the details of
vertically integrating packages we need to figure out now to manage testing.
What tests does civetweb provide? If the test is important I would
assume it is important to all users. Can civetweb build the test?
> >
> > Having thought about this, I am not opposed to seeing the patches
> > merged as long as it is clear what is just moving to the new
> upstream,
> > what are patches, the patches are submitted upstream and we push
> > to get them merged.
> >
> > I realize you need a practical goal. I would like concurrence
> from Chris
> > and Gedare on the short and long term plans. If you can make any
> > progress on the long term plan, that's good but we should accept
> > the short term needed improvement.
> >
> > Perfection is the enemy of the good enough.
> >
> We need to watch out for incurring (new) technical debt. This patch
> set does not add new debt, but it does expose some that we had not
> thought about yet. I would certainly encourage spending some of your
> budget to consider the difficulty to provide the web server as a 3rd
> party package build, and to open a ticket to track such an idea.
Adding the patch set lowers the threshold to bringing further updates in
and that makes the change to a separate package appear a higher cost and
less likely to happen.
We have the httpd code in the RTEMS source tree and in libbsd and we
have a project in GSoC to add lwip. Do we add another copy into lwip to
make sure we have equivalent functionality across the stacks and that is
not even considering network testing? I hope we do not another copy.
> Since
> we now have examples of other 3rd party packages (e.g. graphics tool
> kit), I would expect that a web server should not be too hard. Plus,
> you get the advantage of not tying the civetweb build to the in-tree
> net stack.
I agree.
Chris
>
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >>
> >> Christian Mauderer
> >>
> >> Am 23.04.2016 um 15:07 schrieb Joel Sherrill:
> >> > I am really with Gedare and Chris that it would be better to
> treat this
> >> > as an upstream project. Use the RSB and track patches through
> RTEMS
> >> > tools.
> >> >
> >> > It would be a good case to push the model of a single network
> service
> >> > supporting both stacks and begin the process of removing
> networking code
> >> > from the base RTEMS git repo.
> >> >
> >> > It would also push us to figure out how to rest RSB built
> packages.
> >> >
> >> > On Apr 22, 2016 12:05 AM, "Christian Mauderer"
> >> > <christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>
> >> > <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yes that's right. 05/13 just adds the unchanged sources from
> >> > civetweb.
> >> > Beneath civetweb.c and civetweb.h it also adds
> handle_form.inl and
> >> > md5.inl. The last two files are included into civetweb.c.
> According
> >> > to
> >> > the documentation "The *INL* file extension represents
> code that is
> >> > statically included inline in a source file."
> >> >
> >> > And yes: The patch didn't get through. I have got a replay
> that
> >> > "Your
> >> > message to devel awaits moderator approval". The
> civetweb.c file is
> >> > over
> >> > 300k and the mailing list seems to have a maximum of 256k.
> I hoped
> >> > that
> >> > one of the mail admins would approve the patch soon.
> >> >
> >> > Am 21.04.2016 um 22:49 schrieb Gedare Bloom:
> >> > > I think patch 05/13 probably adds civetweb.c and
> civetweb.h? But
> >> > it
> >> > > did not come through the mailman.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Gedare Bloom
> <gedare at rtems.org <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>
> >> > <mailto:gedare at rtems.org <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>>> wrote:
> >> > >> P.S. might be worth it to open a ticket related to
> civetweb and
> >> > >> #update it from these patches.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Gedare Bloom
> <gedare at rtems.org <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>
> >> > <mailto:gedare at rtems.org <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>>> wrote:
> >> > >>> Is the plan eventually to be able to use the upstream
> civetweb?
> >> > or to
> >> > >>> track it with our own copy?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Christian Mauderer
> >> > >>> <christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>
> >> > <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>>> wrote:
> >> > >>>> This patch series replaces the mongoose webserver by
> its still
> >> > MIT
> >> > >>>> licensed fork civetweb.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Please note that I try to get some (currently two) of the
> >> > patches
> >> > >>>> directly into civetweb too. But I think that it might
> need some
> >> > time and
> >> > >>>> adaption till they are accepted. So I thought that
> adding them
> >> > to RTEMS
> >> > >>>> would still make sense as a working interim solution.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> > >>>> devel mailing list
> >> > >>>> devel at rtems.org <mailto:devel at rtems.org>
> <mailto:devel at rtems.org <mailto:devel at rtems.org>>
> >> > >>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > --------------------------------------------
> >> > embedded brains GmbH
> >> > Christian Mauderer
> >> > Dornierstr. 4
> >> > D-82178 Puchheim
> >> > Germany
> >> > email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>
> >> > <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>>
> >> > Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18
> <tel:%2B49-89-18%2094%20741%20-%2018>
> <tel:%2B49-89-18%2094%20741%20-%2018>
> >> > Fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
> <tel:%2B49-89-18%2094%20741%20-%2008>
> <tel:%2B49-89-18%2094%20741%20-%2008>
> >> > PGP: Public key available on request.
> >> >
> >> > Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im
> Sinne des
> >> > EHUG.
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > devel mailing list
> >> > devel at rtems.org <mailto:devel at rtems.org>
> <mailto:devel at rtems.org <mailto:devel at rtems.org>>
> >> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> embedded brains GmbH
> >> Christian Mauderer
> >> Dornierstr. 4
> >> D-82178 Puchheim
> >> Germany
> >> email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>
> >> Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18 <tel:%2B49-89-18%2094%20741%20-%2018>
> >> Fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08 <tel:%2B49-89-18%2094%20741%20-%2008>
> >> PGP: Public key available on request.
> >>
> >> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des
> EHUG.
> >
> >
>
More information about the devel
mailing list