On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 21:31:27 -0700
Olexandr Prokhorenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am working on the input filter which is going to catch on input
requests, find the bucket with Host: , modify it and pass it
through. I will modify it to something that does not belong to my
... if we had a config finalize, modules who were prepared to declare
their config (e.g. mod_vhost declaring the per-host directory merges
completed) then as-root, we can finish these out, opening logs with
full privileges. Other merges will happen at run time (or be optimized
when we
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
... if we had a config finalize, modules who were prepared to declare
their config (e.g. mod_vhost declaring the per-host directory merges
completed) then as-root, we can finish these out, opening logs with
full privileges. Other merges will happen at run time (or be
On 4/3/2008 at 8:06 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Jagielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another good topic of discussion:
Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along
and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too
much ripping with the inevitable delays
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 16:07
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was
Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])
Another good topic of discussion:
Time for a 2.4
Another good topic of discussion:
Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along
and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too
much ripping with the inevitable delays associated with that :)
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:06:50AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along
and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too
much ripping with the inevitable delays associated with that :)
Is there really enough news in trunk to warrant
Plüm wrote:
2. My feeling regarding the usage of 2.2 is that since about 6 month we are
getting
track as commercial 3rd parties now supply modules for httpd 2.2. This means
that
will have to maintain one more stable branch for quite some time and to be
honest
currently we
On 4/2/08 5:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ixnay on the run-time intensive, slow down the server sorts of changes.
httpd continues to become slower as it becomes more powerful. I know you
are the first one to raise your hand and point out when we are doing too
much
On 4/2/08 5:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pondering this... if we drop per-server ... yet retain the ability
for authors to factor their config info into related config sections...
Yes... Bcs what IO am imagining is something like what I've posted before:
If
On 4/2/08 6:07 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we can finish these out, opening logs with
full privileges. Other merges will happen at run time (or be optimized
when we can accomplish this) per-request.
We already fake per-dir logs with the env stuff in mod_log_config.
--
On 4/3/08 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll commit the Method
If HTTP_Method == GET
...
/If
;)
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Thu Apr 3 08:28:59 2008
New Revision: 644357
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=644357view=rev
Log:
Correct broken configuration in 2.2 - this example didn't run out of the box
+AuthDigestProvider
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 4/2/08 5:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pondering this... if we drop per-server ... yet retain the ability
for authors to factor their config info into related config sections...
Yes... Bcs what IO am imagining is something like what I've
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 4/3/08 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll commit the Method
If HTTP_Method == GET
...
/If
Slow
Greetings Apache Developers,
We have implemented an Apache module which needs to process incoming
Expect headers for non-100-expectations. The version of
server/protocol.c currently in the trunk has a hard-coded Expect
header check that handles Expect: 100-continue, but fails on any
other
On 4/3/08 11:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If HTTP_Method == GET
...
/If
Slow
Not if the parsing is done at config time and HTTP_Method is handle by a
provider. Some pseudo code:
At config time, the parser would do something like:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:22:00 -0400
Akins, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If HTTP_HEADER{'Host'} == www.cnn.com and Port == 8080
DocumentRoot /www/cnn
ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
etc
That basically comes out of what I committed this morning.
Well, up to a point: it only
On 4/3/08 11:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that *doesn't* mean I don't want it... simply not to replace directory,
file, location or method. Keep in mind you wouldn't have your ErrorLog
opened at startup time, as this is too variant
Unless I'm mistaken, there is
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Akins, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very rough draft. But this is not necessarily slow... ;)
Right.
Even then, the user/admin may be willing to burn CPU cycles anyway to
get a simpler config. Plus, if they were to use mod_rewrite, they've
already blown a
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:06:50AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along
and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too
much ripping with the inevitable
Joshua Slive wrote:
I'll admit I never tested that, but file is supposed to be the
default for AuthDigestProvider. Why didn't it work before?
Possibly another of the example configs has overriden the AuthDigestProvider
selection? Or perhaps this default works for AuthBasicProvider but not
Nick Kew wrote:
Limit is of course a crusty old relative.
Limit is unrelated, it's fundamentally borked (directive must know
it is participating in a limit-ed section, cannot overly multiple
limit-ed sections because that directive has never created a conf
section, and there is no exception
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 4/3/08 11:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that *doesn't* mean I don't want it... simply not to replace directory,
file, location or method. Keep in mind you wouldn't have your ErrorLog
opened at startup time, as this is too variant
Unless I'm
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Akins, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very rough draft. But this is not necessarily slow... ;)
Right.
Even then, the user/admin may be willing to burn CPU cycles anyway to
get a simpler config. Plus, if they were to use
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:13:31 -0500
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The If logic doesn't even apply when that module isn't loaded, I'd
hope. Those admins who refuse to let their junior admins use that
directive should have a level of control over their outward facing
On 4/3/2008 at 8:23 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Plüm,
Rüdiger, VF-Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 16:07
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was
Nick Kew wrote:
But before that, we need a vision of where we're going,
and how to get there without breaking what we've got.
* server_conf goes away. Modules have zero or more conf sections,
essentially today's misnamed dir_conf, which are initialized and
merged as they are today.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'd -1 a 2.4.0 release today, because nobody has even bothered to make
a candidate for 2.3-dev. Auth logic changes break most if not all third
party auth modules (broke an auth feature in mod_ftp). Not talking about
commercial modules but every third party
On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me, which is why we need to get a 2.3-beta out
there for testing.
That would be good as well... that way we can determine
how solid the existing impl is, so when the new stuff is
added we know the old stuff is still good
Charles Fry wrote:
Greetings Apache Developers,
We have implemented an Apache module which needs to process incoming
Expect headers for non-100-expectations. The version of
server/protocol.c currently in the trunk has a hard-coded Expect
header check that handles Expect: 100-continue, but fails
On 04/03/2008 12:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: niq
Date: Thu Apr 3 03:23:12 2008
New Revision: 644253
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=644253view=rev
Log:
HTTPD Core: Implement If sections for conditional (runtime) configuration.
N.B. This is a first pass, and has a way to go!
Well, I guess that partly depends on how deployed proxies deal with
unrecognized Expect headers. Do any of you have any practical
knowledge of how current proxies deal with new Expect headers? There
does at least seem to be a precedent with WebDAV sending 102 status
codes (though I know nothing
Charles Fry wrote:
Well, I guess that partly depends on how deployed proxies deal with
unrecognized Expect headers. Do any of you have any practical
knowledge of how current proxies deal with new Expect headers? There
does at least seem to be a precedent with WebDAV sending 102 status
codes
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 09:51:09PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: chrisd
Date: Thu Apr 3 14:51:07 2008
New Revision: 644525
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=644525view=rev
For sure, this requires a mmn bump :)
--
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:18:26 +0200
Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ap_parse_node_t *condition; /* Conditionally merge If
sections */ } core_dir_config;
Does this work correctly without adjusting merge_core_dir_configs?
Good point - I'll take a look. For sure there's more
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008AprJun/0043.html
(I'd propose to continue the conversation over there).
Done. Thanks for initiating the discussion.
The HTTP spec does specify that the hop-to-hop decision MUST be made
at a protocol level
37 matches
Mail list logo
