William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If the user must rewrite their content handlers to pay attention to
thread
jumps, and must use some sort of yeild beyond
apr_socket_poll/select(), then
I'd agree it becomes 3.0.
I wouldn't worry about protocol/mpm authors, who are a breed to ourselves
and should
Paul A Houle wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If the user must rewrite their content handlers to pay attention to
thread
jumps, and must use some sort of yeild beyond
apr_socket_poll/select(), then
I'd agree it becomes 3.0.
I wouldn't worry about protocol/mpm authors, who are a breed to
Hi --
I updated my patch for #36090 for 2.2.0; dunno if anyone cares
to take a look. I've been applying this patch for some time, with
no apparent problems, FWIW.
One note about possible things for wiser minds to review, from
the tail end of the bug description:
The
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:05:19AM +, Stephen Collyer wrote:
[Aside - I posted a similar query to the users list and got a
couple of suggestions but no solution, so I'm reposting here]
In brief:
I'm trying to build http 2.0.55 against openssl 0.9.8a.
I've built (but not
As I mentioned in my last commit, it still needs some clean up.
Please, Please feel free to jump in and clean it up wherever you see the
need. I don't have all of the answers to why things were done the way
they were before and if we still need to do it that way now or is there
a better way.
Dev-folk,
I spoke with David Ascher over at ActiveState to explain our crossroads,
and ask which tracks they expect to follow over the near future (while it's
interesting or relevant to httpd 2.2, until httpd X is released.) He just
confirmed I can share this summary from his Perl, Python and
Title: Message
I'm trying to build
Apache 2.0.55 on Solaris 9. It builds fine, but I'm getting a dependency
on libiconv.so.2. This build will be distributed to customers who won't
have libiconv on they're system. Would anyone be able to tell me how to
configure Apache so that it doesn't try
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
With this single change, there is now a source package available at;
httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.0-win32-src.zip
However, without this single change it was impossible for nmake -f to run
to completion.
Is it unreasonable to publish this .zip if we
Just wondering why am I getting so many of these emails, thati have no idea what it is about... i can't stop it from coming, how can I get out of it i work fora mortgage company, not computers.
http://www.CorvusFunding.com/ - Rate Sheet - No Password RequiredJay KwokAccount
Title: Message
Resending since this doesn't seem to have gone through
the first time.
-Original Message-From: Fenlason, Josh
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:50 PMTo: Apache Dev
(dev@httpd.apache.org)Subject: Apache Build
Problem
I'm trying to
build Apache 2.0.55
--On December 2, 2005 9:39:46 AM -0700 Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As I mentioned in my last commit, it still needs some clean up.
Please, Please feel free to jump in and clean it up wherever you see the
need. I don't have all of the answers to why things were done the way
To start off, congratulations to all involved with 2.2.0 - especially
all the coders.
Now the release is done, I'd really like to get the below in for 2.2.1.
Other than posting here, is there anything I can do to create some
action? Who do I need to get approval from before someone can commit
On Dec 2, 2005, at 5:24 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
With this single change, there is now a source package available at;
httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.0-win32-src.zip
However, without this single change it was impossible for nmake -f
to run
to completion.
Is it unreasonable to
13 matches
Mail list logo
