Martin Kraemer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:25:40PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
...
Indeed -- but then it's no longer CGI (different interface), so you
lose all the CGI applications. There has already been fcgi (in an attempt
at providing almost source level compatibility, and
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 08:44:16PM +0100, Thomas Eibner wrote:
Are there any projects regarding modules.apache.org that will require
development effort? I'd be interested in helping if that is the case.
IMHO a cleanup of the current entries is much more needed than big
changes to the look
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 06:09:03AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aaron 02/02/12 22:09:02
Modified:.STATUS
Log:
Just a heads up to let people know what I'm working on. I ran into
some problems with the new POD
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now that the box is working better I see a couple of errors that
need further study:
1) cgi request handled by cgid right after a restart isn't working
(I added a bunch of restarts in my regression test during the
days that it was hung on
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) POD issue with worker MPM:
[Tue Feb 12 12:01:46 2002] [notice] SIGUSR1 received. Doing graceful
restart
[Tue Feb 12 12:01:46 2002] [warn] (128)Network is unreachable: connect
to listener
This particular Solaris box has a screwy IPv6
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
This has historically been a Covalent hosted and driven project, as a
service to the Apache community. Covalent has decided to open that
project up to the community to improve. To that end, sometime next
week, I will be setting up a machine as a web
I've noticed that the module init sometimes gets called twice. Is this
something I'm doing wrong or is this normal?
--
Brian Akins
Systems Engineer III
CNN Internet Technologies
Brian Akins wrote:
I've noticed that the module init sometimes gets called twice. Is this
something I'm doing wrong or is this normal?
Yep, it's normal for 1.3.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Akins wrote:
I've noticed that the module init sometimes gets called twice. Is this
something I'm doing wrong or is this normal?
This is normal (at least for Apache 1.3). It gets called
once during config parsing, and again after daemonising
and right before children start getting
FWIW, my JRE_1 tag does *not* have this change. rbb and I agreed
that it wasn't necessary to have the signal-less worker MPM in any
beta as it doesn't affect modules. It also gives time to stablize
problems like these.
yep... roll on...
unclear what problem was actually being
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
This has historically been a Covalent hosted and driven project, as
a
service to the Apache community. Covalent has decided to open that
project up to the community to improve. To that end, sometime next
week, I will be setting up a machine as a
This is normal. Apache does two initializations, the first bootstraps
the server, and the second actually initializes it.
Ryan
I've noticed that the module init sometimes gets called twice. Is
this
something I'm doing wrong or is this normal?
--
Brian Akins
Systems Engineer III
CNN
This has historically been a Covalent hosted and driven project,
as
a
service to the Apache community. Covalent has decided to open
that
project up to the community to improve. To that end, sometime
next
week, I will be setting up a machine as a web server and CVS
server
to
be
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Everything will be setup with a BSD license.
Curious; why not ASF?
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
Millennium hand and shrimp!
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:47:35 -0500
Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Akins wrote:
I've noticed that the module init sometimes gets called twice. Is this
something I'm doing wrong or is this normal?
This is normal (at least for Apache 1.3). It gets called
once
I compiled a 20020213 httpd anoncvs today to try the perchild module.
And I think that:
8-
Out of Memory: Killed process 4768 (apache2).
Out of Memory: Killed process 4774 (apache2).
Out of Memory: Killed process 4775 (apache2).
Out of Memory: Killed
Eli Marmor wrote:
By the way: The main problem of Apache 2.0 (IMHO) is not stability
(which is already higher than competing products),
:) :) :)
btw, in less than an hour daedalus will have been running JRE_1 for 3 days. The
only hiccup I'm aware of was the surprising behavior when
Okay, I've rolled JRE_1 again. You can either grab the tag via CVS
or download this tarball:
http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/2.0.32-jre/httpd-2.0.32-JRE-1-alpha.tar.gz
Changes from the last roll:
- prefork MPM won't exit and kill the parent on resource exhaustion
(this has been running
It could be a chicken-and-egg problem. If the developers of those tools
don't have a
lot of users asking for Apache 2.0 support, what is their motivation for
providing it? They are probably like us, with lots of other things on
their to-do lists. If we had a golden release, perhaps that
I really don't know what is going on with the proxy, so it is silly for me
to be acting as an intermediary. I'll just reopen this bug report, and
anyone who wants can take a look at it.
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Gripshover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: February 13, 2002 10:27
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've been running on daedalus for some time now, so I'm pretty
confident this is a stable release. About the only problem we've
seen on daedalus is the ForceLanguagePriority problem and that is
because it is *not* using the default httpd.conf. We could point
at
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:55:10AM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've been running on daedalus for some time now, so I'm pretty
confident this is a stable release. About the only problem we've
seen on daedalus is the ForceLanguagePriority problem and that is
From: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:57 AM
Okay, I've rolled JRE_1 again. You can either grab the tag via CVS...
Since I don't have a complete list of files that I need to bump from
OtherBill, I'm taking a guess at what is needed. Someone with
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:32:46AM -0500, Padwa, Daniel wrote:
It could be a chicken-and-egg problem. If the developers of those tools
don't have a
lot of users asking for Apache 2.0 support, what is their motivation for
providing it? They are probably like us, with lots of other things
From: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:00 AM
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:55:10AM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've been running on daedalus for some time now, so I'm pretty
confident this is a stable release. About the
Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 08:44:16PM +0100, Thomas Eibner wrote:
Are there any projects regarding modules.apache.org that will require
development effort? I'd be interested in helping if that is the case.
IMHO a cleanup of the current entries is much more needed than big
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 09:08:38AM -0800, Ian Holsman wrote:
even easier
a nightly cron job which does a HEAD on the URL link.
if it 404's x in a row it gets marked as old
if it 404's for a week/month it gets deleted
what are you planning to write this in JSP/perl/PHP ?
or a custom apache
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 06:18:15PM +0100, Thomas Eibner wrote:
Already a lot of ideas floating around, maybe it would be good to get
a mailinglist set up for discussion on it?
+1
-aaron
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, my JRE_1 tag does *not* have this change. rbb and I agreed
that it wasn't necessary to have the signal-less worker MPM in any
beta as it doesn't affect modules. It also gives time to stablize
problems like these.
yep... roll on...
Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 08:44:16PM +0100, Thomas Eibner wrote:
Are there any projects regarding modules.apache.org that will
require
development effort? I'd be interested in helping if that is the
case.
IMHO a cleanup of the current entries is much more needed than
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 09:08:38AM -0800, Ian Holsman wrote:
even easier
a nightly cron job which does a HEAD on the URL link.
if it 404's x in a row it gets marked as old
if it 404's for a week/month it gets deleted
what are you planning to write this in JSP/perl/PHP ?
or a custom
FWIW, my JRE_1 tag does *not* have this change. rbb and I
agreed
that it wasn't necessary to have the signal-less worker MPM in
any
beta as it doesn't affect modules. It also gives time to
stablize
problems like these.
yep... roll on...
unclear what problem was
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 09:40:49AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
I know, but I don't have a machine yet. I'm not going to have the box
ready until next Wednesday. I just wanted to give a quick heads up and
get people thinking. I would get things setup sooner, but I have a
major deadline this
I've rolled another tarball with these changes and have updated
the JRE_1 tag accordignly. Sorry for all of the rolling, but I
didn't know what platform-specific files I needed to bump. The
usual place:
http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/2.0.32-jre/httpd-2.0.32-JRE-1-alpha.tar.gz
I do not
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) POD issue with worker MPM:
[Tue Feb 12 12:01:46 2002] [notice] SIGUSR1 received. Doing graceful
restart
[Tue Feb 12 12:01:46 2002] [warn] (128)Network is unreachable: connect
to listener
This particular
No, this patch did not fix the problem.
Point a browser to the following url thru apache proxy to see the mess.
http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?SignIn
The browser still displays page source instead of rendering, and these
two lines are logged in the error log (yes one url,
Padwa, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin's work on coordinating the .32 release has been extremely positive in
this regard (way to go Justin!).
+1!
A few more releases like this can
probably get 2.0-gold out the door. Without that kind of
any complaints?
we even get that message for APR_EOF when we terminate...
(and most importantly, there was a tab character in there somewhere)
Index: server/protocol.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/server/protocol.c,v
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 08:30:35PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
any complaints?
Eww. I had all this logic to avoid printing certain codes (and I
seemed to have missed some codes too because they are normal in HTTP
serving). I took those conditionals out in r1.79 and demoted the
error to debug
From: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:42 PM
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 08:30:35PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
any complaints?
Eww. I had all this logic to avoid printing certain codes (and I
seemed to have missed some codes too because they are
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 08:17:45PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
++1! I'd even suggest they disappear from 'your' .32 Justin ... we know
how freaked out users get at silly messages :)
How many people are going to be setting the LogLevel to debug? I
don't consider it that serious of a
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
++1! I'd even suggest they disappear from 'your' .32 Justin ... we know
how freaked out users get at silly messages :)
will it ever end? I'm sorry I said anything :)
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've rolled another tarball with these changes and have updated
the JRE_1 tag accordignly. Sorry for all of the rolling, but I
didn't know what platform-specific files I needed to bump. The
usual place:
Point taken, good call. BTW - We build quite nicely on Win32 with your JRE_1
tag of earlier today... Suggest you might go into CHANGES - pull the 'deferred'
patches that you aren't rolling - Commit, then commit them back under .33-dev.
cvs up says you moved no tags since I last built - so it
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 02:48:19AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aaron 02/02/13 18:48:19
Modified:server/mpm/worker worker.c
Log:
Retain signal handling in the worker MPM for the one_process case
(httpd with -DDEBUG, -X, or -DONE_PROCESS).
Fix -X, -DNO_DETACH,
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/02/06 14:54:52 $]
Release:
1.3.24-dev: In development.
Jim proposes to TR around Feb 15 because of
the Solaris pthread mutex fix.
1.3.23: Tagged Jan 21,
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/02/14 03:15:42 $]
Release:
2.0.32 : in development
2.0.31 : rolled Feburary 1, 2002. not released.
2.0.30 : tagged January 8, 2002. not rolled.
2.0.29 : tagged November
Joshua Slive wrote:
I really don't know what is going on with the proxy, so it is silly for me
to be acting as an intermediary. I'll just reopen this bug report, and
anyone who wants can take a look at it.
This is a different bug entirely - it's to do with what proxy does when
it encounters
48 matches
Mail list logo
