req.add_handler/req.handler and PythonInterpPerDirective
Key: MODPYTHON-160
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-160
Project: mod_python
Type: Bug
Components: core
Versions: 3.3
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-160?page=all ]
Graham Dumpleton updated MODPYTHON-160:
---
Version: 3.2.8
(was: 3.3)
Actually, one doesn't need to set req.handler as SetHandler/AddHandler in
Apache configuration
On Fre 14.04.2006 15:12, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
... that would prevent me from rolling early tomorrow? Please raise
hands now, and lets see if we can't get them committed. I'm thinking
of patches-to-apply, not new efforts :) There's always 2.0.57 for new
and exciting bug fixes.
Is this
Hi --
Someone tried to send me a fax in the middle of the night,
so I've been up for a while and I think I've realized there are
several subtle contention issues involved with any fix for this issue.
First of all, I should note that my initial patch in Bugzilla
has a flaw; it needs an else
Hi --
for (i = 0; i ap_threads_per_child; i++) {
if (status != SERVER_GRACEFUL status != SERVER_DEAD) {
ap_update_child_status_from_indexes(slot, i, SERVER_INIT, NULL);
}
}
[snip]
... after make_child() does its check for != GRACEFUL and != DEAD ...
After heading back
I might have asked this before, but I've forgotten the answer, and so has
google. Has any of the large file goodness from 2.2.x made it into 2.0.x? Will
it ever?
I had a wild idea not so long ago to make a sort of simple web interface for apache.It is far from done, but what i got working (not mutch since i only put like 5 hours in it) i showed to some server admin's i know and they where very entausiatic.
I got sort of a log manager working fine in
Brandon Fosdick wrote:
I might have asked this before, but I've forgotten the answer, and so
has google. Has any of the large file goodness from 2.2.x made it into
2.0.x?
no.
Will it ever?
no.
Several of the things require APR 1.x, and some of them break binary
compat. They will never
Paul Querna wrote:
Brandon Fosdick wrote:
I might have asked this before, but I've forgotten the answer, and so
has google. Has any of the large file goodness from 2.2.x made it into
2.0.x?
no.
Actually, not entirely true. There is some chewy goodness now in 2.0.x,
such as log files
