[patch]2 : mod_auth_ldap doesn't effectively use the cache with requireuser User1 User2 .. directives]

I have posted this patch proposal a week ago and since I got only one reply - how to get round of the problem, and not any discussins about the problem itself or if my proposal is reasonable or not for the module development, I follow the instruction on the DEV page to repost it again. The

Re: [patch]2 : mod_auth_ldap doesn't effectively use the cache with require user User1 User2 .. directives]

it sould be it would be a good thing for apache -Kyle www.kyleserver.com - Original Message - From: Yavor Trapkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:28 AM Subject: [patch]2 : mod_auth_ldap doesn't effectively use the cache with require user User1 User2

Re: [Win32] compiling Apache 2.1.0-dev: missing sslc.h

MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote: I tried -DHAVE_OPENSSL as compiler argument in the program settings with no success. Let me see if there are any other options. Hi, I found it :-) I have to set HAVE_OPENSSL=1 in the MS Visual C++ 6.0 compiler in the project setings under program

mod_disk_cache problem

Title: Message hi, i know this may not be the appropriate place to post this, but i've search every corner of th web and found no answer... i'm using apache2.0.44 and linux 2.4.18-3smp #1.apache is connected to tomcat 4.1.18 via mod_jk2. I'm using apache standard cache configuration

Bug report for Apache httpd-1.3 [2003/03/16]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned

Re: [patch]2 : mod_auth_ldap doesn't effectively use the cache withrequire user User1 User2 .. directives]

Yavor Trapkov wrote: - firstly, it checks if the whole string User1 User2 .. matches the CN of the authenticated user and as this is a very rear situation it almost always fails so each time we request a page, the WEB server sends a LDAP query as this is never cached as a negative result

Re: Advanced Mass Hosting Module

Nathan Ollerenshaw wrote: What I have in mind is a module that fits in with our current LDAP based infrastructure. Currently, LDAP services our mail users, and I would like to see the Apache mass hosting configuration held in LDAP as well. In this way, we can just scale by adding more apache

Re: mod_disk_cache problem

Ori Tend wrote: I'm using apache standard cache configuration (loading mod_disk_cache). Yet for some reason, apache doesn't write anything to the CacheRoot dir. Are you sure Apache is allowed to write to your cache directory? Check the permissions and ownership. Does the cache directory exist?

Re: [patch]2 : mod_auth_ldap doesn't effectively use the cache withrequire user User1 User2 .. directives]

Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yavor Trapkov wrote: - firstly, it checks if the whole string User1 User2 .. matches the CN of the authenticated user and as this is a very rear situation it almost always fails so each time we request a page, the WEB server sends a LDAP query

[patch] bogus support for pre-'make install' use of apxs

It looks like nobody has used apxs when httpd wasn't installed yet. The following code in apxs is bogus: #allow apxs to be run from the source tree, before installation if ($0 =~ m:support/apxs$:) { ($httpd = $0) =~ s:support/apxs$::; } This takes a path /foo/support/apxs and assigns /foo (a

Re: discussion on fd leak problematic

At 04:36 PM 3/14/2003, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: this is a summary for further discussion on the fd leak problematic in httpd-2.0 and related apr (inherit) code. Again, thanks. This post focuses on the httpd aspects, presuming all of your issues in APR are addressed by that list, and all that httpd

Re: Apache 2.1.0

At 06:54 PM 3/16/2003, Dave wrote: When are we going to start seeing httpd 2.1.x releases? httpd 2.0.x releases were coming out about two years before a GA release. What is the plan for 2.1.x functionality? We will have no 2.1.x-gold releases, the 2.1-dev tree is (by definition) -beta. So we

Antw: Re: [patch]2 : mod_auth_ldap doesn't effectively use thecache withrequire user User1 User2 .. dir

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 16.03.2003 21:45:12 Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then your idea to use 's and have only one check is probably a solution or we can have an extra option to specify how this require user User1 User2 .. to be interpreted - as a single value or as a list of values.