[Wifidog] incorporate_libhttpd branch merged

Philippe April papril777 at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 17 12:52:32 EST 2004

>> Other than that, I think libhttpd makes it super clean. If it's possible
>> to use it to forge clean HTTP GET requests and parse the responses, it'd
>> be good to use it for that too!
> No you can't.  For that we'd need libcurl or something similar.

Ok. I looked at libcurl, and it looks very complete, it's just a bit big
(and introduces another dependency which we want to keep super-low).

> At the meeting tonight I'll propose we DON'T use HTTP when the gateway
> is talking to the central server.  A much simpler text protocol without
> all the HTTP hoopla would be much simpler to code gateway-side.

I can't attend tonight, I have many other things I can't unfortunately

One thing I really like about doing it over HTTP is that we don't need two
separate things running on the central server, it can all be done in PHP
so you only need that, a connection to a DB and your favorite web server.

Otherwise, one part has to serve HTTPS (ie. in PHP/Apache) and the other
one is answering to our protocol. Two protocols, two ports, two separate
processes (I don't like the idea).

To fix that problem, we could do both with Perl (I know you like Perl and
you'd go for that one) as a running daemon.

I thought PHP was good for that task, at the same time you can run other
content other than a WifiDog central/auth server.

If the majority of you agree that we should do it in Perl and handle HTTPS
and our protocol, we should go for that.

Myself, I would like to stick with HTTP(s) (PHP/Apache) and have our
"protocol" or information simply encapsulated in HTTP.

Philippe April
papril777 at yahoo.com

Wifidog mailing list
Wifidog at isf.waglo.com

More information about the Wifidog mailing list