Web Server Patch

[Joel Sherrill]

Till Straumann wrote:
> 
> Hi all.
> 
> I'm still very much at unease with the fact that this goes
> into the RTEMS source tree.

In particular, I don't like the webserver being in the tree
but since we don't have a model for constructing RTEMS add
on packages that contain their own configurery, it is the
best place to ensure that it is maintained and gets built 
on a regular basis.

> Don't misunderstand me - I think it's great if a webserver
> is ported to RTEMS. I just don't think it should be part
> of RTEMS proper but unbundled.
> 
> A web server, telnetd, shell, pppd are IMHO _applications_
> and I can't see a good reason why they should reside in
> librtemsbsp.
> 
> Please consider making each of these applications a separate
> library, at least.

In general, they change so infrequently that packaging them
completely separately wouldn't be the worst idea.  Ralf is 
probably the best one to answer but we should be able to use
some CVS magic to reuse RTEMS configurery with separate pieces.

> My suggestion would be to split librtemsbsp (c/src/) into
> 
> libbsp   (contains 'lib', 'librtems++' only)
> libchip
> librdbg
> libwebserver
> libtelnetd
> libpppd
> libftpd
> 
> and librtemscpu [the name is unfortunate anyhow]
> 
> librtems  (score, sapi, rtems, posix, ada, itron, libcsupport only)
> libnetworking
> librpc
> libblock
> libdosfs
> libftpfs
> libtftpfs
> libimfs
> libmisc    (could also be broken up)

Some of these may be able to be broken out but as a practical matter
won't this make linking applications more difficult?

On the face of it, I don't really care one way or the other except 
for balancing complexity and convenience.  But it is a big change
from a user perspective and could have a lot of impact on build
infrastructure.
Is it worth it? 

> This would be WYSIWYG.
> 
> -- Till
> 
> PS: Some stuff I created: a shell (cexp), a modified tftpd a filesystem (NFS)
>      and more can _perfectly_ live outside of the RTEMS tree. Only my BSP really
>      needs to go there.

And the goal of cpukit is to let all BSPs live outside the tree of RTEMS
proper.

> Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> > Mike Siers wrote:
> >
> >>Hi All,
> >>I grabbed the latest source tar ball from GoAhead and got it
> >>working under RTEMS.  I am assuming that it is version 2.1.4
> >>since this was the archive name (source code still says 2.1.3).
> >>The following URL is the release notes from GoAhead.
> >>
> >>http://data.goahead.com/Software/Webserver/2.1.4/release.htm
> >>
> >>I have only done a minimal amount of testing (i.e. the network
> >>demo program works fine).  Please try this out and let me know
> >>if it works.  The patch needs to be applied on the
> >>c/src/libnetworking/rtems_webserver directory.
> >
> >
> > I have merged this to the trunk (not 4.6 branch) and will commit
> > it once I have compiled it.
> >
> >
> >>I would also propose a small API change.  I would like to
> >>have the function rtems_initialize_webserver() take one
> >>string pointer as a parameter.  This would be the default
> >>directory for the web server files.  If the parameter is
> >>NULL, then the server would use the root directory as the
> >>default.  This change is not in the attached patch.
> >
> >
> > I do not have a problem with this patch if you submit it.  Any
> > documentation
> > in the networking guide should be updated to reflect this.
> >
> >
> >>Mike Siers
> >>
> >>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>                             Name: httpd.patch.bz2
> >>   httpd.patch.bz2           Type: unspecified type (application/octet-stream)
> >>                         Encoding: base64
> >>                  Download Status: Not downloaded with message
> >
> >

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel at OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985