On May 9, 2008, at 6:23 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2008/5/9 Sam Carleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am a one man ISV that is using an Apache and an Apache Module. I
am
trying to trouble shoot a timeout issue that I cannot see, my
customer
is reporting the problem and he can consistently
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Graham Dumpleton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since you see one request but not the second, one thing I would
perhaps suggest doing is turn off KeepAlive and see if that makes a
difference with the client.
I am wondering, I do not see the timeout bug but my
Sam Carleton wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Graham Dumpleton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since you see one request but not the second, one thing I would
perhaps suggest doing is turn off KeepAlive and see if that makes a
difference with the client.
I am wondering, I do not see
I am nearly finished with the technical review draft of the second
edition of the Apache Pocket Reference (my deadline for this is 30 May),
and am looking for a number of people to review the manuscript. I would
be very grateful for any volunteers and I believe that there will be
some free copies
What if Vary were much more than just HTTP Vary? It would be nice if the
framework could support the external vary (ie, normal HTTP Vary) as well
as any internal Vary.
To use general mod_disk_cache structure, we currently have something sorta
like this for vary metafiles:
int cache_version
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: trawick
Date: Fri May 9 03:57:46 2008
New Revision: 654752
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=654752view=rev
Log:
backport from trunk:
*) mod_cgid: Explicitly set permissions of the socket (ScriptSock) shared by
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Gregory Boyce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I found the trigger for the bug, but I'm not sure what the correct fix
is.
It appears that Apache on SuSE sets AP_DEBUG as part of the EXTRA_CPPFLAGS
variable in config_vars.mk while Debian does not. Manually removing
I'm interested
Regards,
Nick
Me too!
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Nick Gearls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm interested
Regards,
Nick
--
My Blogs:
http://www.docunext.com/
http://www.albertlash.com/
Good idea! :-)
Iim insterested too.
Iñigo
I am nearly finished with the technical review draft of the second
edition of the Apache Pocket Reference (my deadline for this is 30 May),
and am looking for a number of people to review the manuscript. I would
be very grateful for any
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: trawick
Date: Fri May 9 03:57:46 2008
New Revision: 654752
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=654752view=rev
Log:
backport from trunk:
*) mod_cgid:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just put it in
people.apache.org:/www/www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.2.8/.
The archive.apache.org/dist/ directory is an automatic copy of the
stuff under www.apache.org/dist/.
Thanks!
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Add in r568323 and 568879. The approved patch
lacked updates to the doccos and so really shouldn't
have been approved as is, but what the heck, so I
went ahead and pulled the doccos changes from the orig
commit anyway. Also, since this is a userland change,
it should really
On May 9, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Chris Darroch wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Add in r568323 and 568879. The approved patch
lacked updates to the doccos and so really shouldn't
have been approved as is, but what the heck, so I
went ahead and pulled the doccos changes from the orig
commit anyway.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
There is a lot of valuable stuff in your jumbo patch - but I am not sure
what the best approach is to fold it in.
Could you have have a look at the rough patch I posted earlier today -
and let me know if you have any thoughts
as to which parts should be moved
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Graham Leggett wrote:
There is a lot of valuable stuff in your jumbo patch - but I am not sure
what the best approach is to fold it in.
Could you have have a look at the rough patch I posted earlier today - and
let me know if you have any thoughts
as to which parts should
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Fri May 9 06:35:27 2008
New Revision: 654805
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=654805view=rev
Log:
Update doccos
Please update your build system checkout. Yours seems outdated ;)
nd
--
Winnetous Erbe:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Why is this needed? Should this job be performed by the
ap_keep_body_filter that should
be in our input filter chain if we want to keep the body?
Of course this depends when we call ap_parse_request_form. If we call it
during the
authn/z phase the filter chain hasn't
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
I'm not convinced that forking the disk cache having two similar ones
tuned for different usecases is a good idea in the long run, I'm pretty
sure that the parts that needs tweaking can be solved with config
options and documentation. For a development sprint like
On May 9, 2008, at 3:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/
mod_proxy_http.c?rev=654968r1=654967r2=654968view=diff
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Please tell me that the chunk above is a mistaken commit.
The chunk above is a mistaken commit.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I think the bigger idea that mod_cache must handle all rfc related issues
is key. mem and disk cache should never have had substantial differences
in behavior, but they do.
So the more we can consolidate in mod_cache w.r.t. the requests themselves,
the less the
22 matches
Mail list logo
