On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 11:57:09AM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
This is the patch I promised a couple weeks ago. It changes the way
we create the scoreboard to be more friendly with 3rd party apps/processes
that want access to the scoreboard while maintaining the ability to
have an anonymous
Hi,
thanks very much for your reply! Now I at least know why it doesn't work,
and -- according to a Hungarian proverb -- knowing the illness is halfway
towards health.
Now I'll try a few things in my J2EE application:
1. unset the path in the cookie before attaching it to the response
Cookie c
I had to modify the MPMs so they wouldn't try to set ap_scoreboard_fname
any more. This #define is now fully owned by the scoreboard.c file.
(Might we want to namespace-protect that #define? I don't know.)
I'm posting this here for feedback because it is a big change and could
use some
On Thursday, February 14, 2002, at 03:28 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
can you add rewrite rules proxypass to a .htaccess file ? if so then
sure put in a no proxyreverse directive.
otherwise.. not sure if it is required.
Yes, this is one of the ways to use mod_rewrite IIRC.
Chuck
Hi,
This patch gets us working with subversion ;)
This removes some checks that go against the spec. If
we have broken browsers out there, we can BrowserMatch
for them. But by default we want to get everything
through this filter.
Justin identified a problem with the Content-Length
header
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 08:54:16PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rbowen 02/02/09 12:54:16
Modified:htdocs/manual/mod core.html.en
Log:
Added example to ServerAlias doc.
+pExample:/p
+
+pre
+lt;VirtualHost *gt;
+ServerName
Sander Striker wrote:
@@ -297,6 +287,7 @@
apr_table_setn(r-headers_out, Content-Encoding, gzip);
apr_table_setn(r-headers_out, Vary, Accept-Encoding);
+apr_table_unset(r-headers_out, Content-Length);
}
APR_BRIGADE_FOREACH(e, bb) {
Do you
According to Martin Kraemer:
I just noticed that domain.com and mydomain.com should not
appear in the docs: they have been registered:
We've just discussed similar cases on the docs list.
The correct solutions would be use example.{com|net|org}.
These domains are registered by IANA and are
At 2:56 PM -0500 2/14/02, Chuck Murcko wrote:
It has been suggested to me by some folks I work with that it would make sense to add
a ReverseProxy on/off directive to 2.0 mod_proxy. I agree that it seems to make sense
from both a security and Law of Least Astonishment standpoint, but it would
...since yesterday evening, Thursday, 14-Feb-2002 19:55:27 PST. No known
glitches - please speak up if you notice any.
Greg
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
This build has been running on daedalus for over three days now
(with one minor tweak that is in this release for mod_negotiation),
so I believe it has passed our dog food test, but Greg Ames has the
final word on daedalus's vote.
daedalus says, +1 for beta. It's
This works well with perfork and worker under Linux. I have a couple
of comments though:
1) There are some not infrequent cases I have run into where apache
needs to be killed (for unrelated reasons) and the shared memory
segment does not get cleaned up. When this happens, you
From: Lars Eilebrecht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
According to Martin Kraemer:
I just noticed that domain.com and mydomain.com should not
appear in the docs: they have been registered:
We've just discussed similar cases on the docs list.
The correct solutions would be use
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:50:31AM -0800, Adam Sussman wrote:
This works well with perfork and worker under Linux. I have a couple
of comments though:
1) There are some not infrequent cases I have run into where apache
needs to be killed (for unrelated reasons) and the shared memory
Hi,
Can we compress requests aswell? Is that part of the deflate
spec? Can someone give me some details on how this would
work (I could ofcourse read the spec...)?
Thanks,
Sander
8:21AM up 9 days, 16:36, 5 users, load averages: 138.06, 114.90, 73.64
Not good. We need to revert.
Brian
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Greg Ames wrote:
...since yesterday evening, Thursday, 14-Feb-2002 19:55:27 PST. No known
glitches - please speak up if you notice any.
Greg
I captured the output generated by both IE 5.5 and Mozilla 0.9.8.
Then used telnet to connect to Apache and pasted the data from Mozilla.
Output returned was exactly as expected. But submitting it from
Mozilla, it fails. The body of the post (the form variables) are not
read. Could this
Ok, this came out after today's food fight between cubicles :) :) :) And it
was even made top story... Wait until the feed hits CNN :) :) :)
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1129290
Pier
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:08:29PM -0500, Dwayne Miller wrote:
I captured the output generated by both IE 5.5 and Mozilla 0.9.8.
Then used telnet to connect to Apache and pasted the data from Mozilla.
Output returned was exactly as expected. But submitting it from
Mozilla, it fails. The
I'm still not very happy about compressing EVERYTHING and excluding
certain browsers
as you would have to exclude IE Netscape.
so
this is a
-1 for this patch.
in order to change this checks need to be there with a directive to
ignore them (default:off)
Sander Striker wrote:
Sander Striker
From: Ian Holsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 15 February 2002 18:44
Hi,
I'm still not very happy about compressing EVERYTHING and excluding
certain browsers as you would have to exclude IE Netscape.
so this is a -1 for this patch.
in order to change this checks need to be there
Sander Striker wrote:
From: Ian Holsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 15 February 2002 18:44
Hi,
I'm still not very happy about compressing EVERYTHING and excluding
certain browsers as you would have to exclude IE Netscape.
so this is a -1 for this patch.
in order to change this
Well, I found the problem... or part of it. Turns out the module in
question (which is a custom module) was being rebuilt when I updated to
the JRE-1 tarball, but not being copied to the installation directory.
So I was using a version linked with .31 of Apache.
The reason I couldn't test
I have to amend that response... it works without SSL. Under SSL it
behaves the same as before. I'm convinced it's all in the module now,
so I'll get off this list with this issue.
Thanks again.
D
Dwayne Miller wrote:
Well, I found the problem... or part of it. Turns out the module in
Chuck Murcko wrote:
On Thursday, February 14, 2002, at 03:28 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
can you add rewrite rules proxypass to a .htaccess file ? if so then
sure put in a no proxyreverse directive.
otherwise.. not sure if it is required.
Yes, this is one of the ways to use mod_rewrite IIRC.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
trawick 02/02/15 12:52:52
Modified:docs/manual/mod directives.html index-bytype.html index.html
Added: docs/manual/mod mod_deflate.html
Log:
initial (rough) docs for mod_deflate
okay, the boilerplate work has been done... maybe somebody
If the file specified by SSLMutex cannot be created (because the directory
does not exist for example), children will segfault on init without giving
any reason that the user can figure out. This happens because the module
init in the parent never checks to see if the mutex intialization
By my count, we now have 6 +1s for a 2.0.32 beta in STATUS. Some
variant of this release has been on daedalus for over a week now.
I'm fairly confident we have something that is better than 2.0.28.
Therefore, I would like to unleash this on the world as a beta.
If you have any formal objections,
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 04:25:10PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
By my count, we now have 6 +1s for a 2.0.32 beta in STATUS. Some
variant of this release has been on daedalus for over a week now.
I'm fairly confident we have something that is better than 2.0.28.
Therefore, I would like to
Some comments and suggested wording below...
By my count, we now have 6 +1s for a 2.0.32 beta in STATUS. Some
variant of this release has been on daedalus for over a week now.
I'm fairly confident we have something that is better than 2.0.28.
Therefore, I would like to unleash this on the
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Some comments and suggested wording below...
my 2c.
we need to mention the patch of adam's and how it avoids a segfault
in SSL.
but I'm still +1
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module
authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any
concerns with the Apache development team at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is your best opportunity to ensure that your issues are
addressed prior
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module
authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any
concerns with the Apache development team at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is your best opportunity to ensure that your issues are
Just for the record, it seems someone already saw the tarball and posted it to
freshmeat.
http://freshmeat.net/releases/69982/
Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module
authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any
concerns with the Apache
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module
authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any
concerns with the Apache development team at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is your best opportunity to ensure that your issues
The prefork MPM is still using the old lock API
for its accept mutex. I have a patch to replace
this with the apr_proc_mutex_t API. But before
I commit it, is there any reason why it would be
unsafe to do so (e.g., platforms on which prefork
is supported but the apr_proc_mutex API is not
yet
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
If cliff's changes require a API change, we could do the API
change now (post .32) and that will get the pressure of cliff
on producing the whole patch, leaving him more time to test it.
The API change is almost all of the work. But it's within
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate.
In order to fix the last of the performance problems
in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for
buckets (the stuff that Cliff is working on).
I have another: I consider the existence of
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:44:19 -0800, Ian Holsman wrote about Re: [PATCH] mod_deflate:
I'm still not very happy about compressing EVERYTHING and excluding
certain browsers
as you would have to exclude IE Netscape.
so
this is a
-1 for this patch.
in order to change this checks need to
39 matches
Mail list logo
