[jira] Commented: (MODPYTHON-234) SystemError: bad argument to internal function

2007-07-29 Thread Graham Dumpleton (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-234?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12516213 ] Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-234: This error also seen by someone using Django and

[jira] Created: (MODPYTHON-240) LimitRequestBody directive doesn't work well with mod_python handlers.

2007-07-29 Thread Graham Dumpleton (JIRA)
LimitRequestBody directive doesn't work well with mod_python handlers. -- Key: MODPYTHON-240 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-240 Project: mod_python

[PATCH]: mod_cache: don't store headers that will never be used

2007-07-29 Thread Niklas Edmundsson
Attached is a patch for mod_cache (patch is for httpd-2.2.4) that implements what I suggested in May (see the entire thread at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200705.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ). The problem is that cached objects that gets hammered with Cache-Control:

Re: svn commit: r560689 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/filters/mod_deflate.c

2007-07-29 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 07/29/2007 10:35 AM, wrote: Author: niq Date: Sun Jul 29 01:35:56 2007 New Revision: 560689 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=560689 Log: Fix protocol handling in mod_deflate input filter PR 23287 Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES

Re: svn commit: r560373 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES include/util_ldap.h modules/aaa/mod_authnz_ldap.c modules/ldap/util_ldap.c modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache.c modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache.h module

2007-07-29 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 07/27/2007 10:34 PM, wrote: Author: rederpj Date: Fri Jul 27 13:34:41 2007 New Revision: 560373 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=560373 Log: mod_ldap, mod_authnzldap: Add support for nested groups (i.e. the ability to authorize an authenticated user via a require

Re: svn commit: r560689 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/filters/mod_deflate.c

2007-07-29 Thread Nick Kew
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:37:20 +0200 Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [as usual, catching my bugs - thanks] +if (!strcasecmp(token, gzip)) { +char *new_encoding = apr_pstrdup(r-pool, encoding); +char *ptr =

Re: [PATCH]: mod_cache: don't store headers that will never be used

2007-07-29 Thread Graham Leggett
Niklas Edmundsson wrote: The solution is to NOT rewrite the on-disk headers when the following conditions are true: - The body is NOT stale (ie. HTTP_NOT_MODIFIED when revalidating) - The on-disk header hasn't expired. - The request has max-age=0 This is perfectly OK with RFC2616 10.3.5 and

Re: [PATCH]: mod_cache: don't store headers that will never be used

2007-07-29 Thread Joshua Slive
On 7/29/07, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Niklas Edmundsson wrote: The solution is to NOT rewrite the on-disk headers when the following conditions are true: - The body is NOT stale (ie. HTTP_NOT_MODIFIED when revalidating) - The on-disk header hasn't expired. - The request

Re: [PATCH]: mod_cache: don't store headers that will never be used

2007-07-29 Thread Henrik Nordstrom
On sön, 2007-07-29 at 20:34 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: Niklas Edmundsson wrote: The solution is to NOT rewrite the on-disk headers when the following conditions are true: - The body is NOT stale (ie. HTTP_NOT_MODIFIED when revalidating) - The on-disk header hasn't expired. - The

Re: [PATCH]: mod_cache: don't store headers that will never be used

2007-07-29 Thread Graham Leggett
Joshua Slive wrote: What needs to be validated is if, in fact, the headers with NEVER be used. Is there any configuration directive or client request that could make mod_cache use headers from the cache when max-age=0? I don't think so. The headers will be used by the next request - not just

Re: [PATCH]: mod_cache: don't store headers that will never be used

2007-07-29 Thread Roy T. Fielding
On Jul 29, 2007, at 1:03 AM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: Attached is a patch for mod_cache (patch is for httpd-2.2.4) that implements what I suggested in May (see the entire thread at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200705.mbox/% [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). The problem is that