I don't know if anyone is httpd land is following the HTML5 proposals,
specifically the newer stuff being called WebSockets:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#network
And a blog post about it:
http://www.jroller.com/tedgoddard/entry/websocket_is_neither_web_nor
Mostly I am
-
Paul Querna:
I don't know if anyone is httpd land is following the HTML5 proposals,
specifically the newer stuff being called WebSockets:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#network
And a blog post about it:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Paul Querna wrote:
-1.
IIRC and pretty much all modern are both bad reasons for being sloppy
;-)
IIRC ( :- ) the AIX compiler actually doesn't like it, but other people
know that better.
Then lets not support AIX :-)
To expand on my beliefs around this a little bit,
I've just tried a clean trunk build, to play with Paul's simple MPM.
Unfortunately buildconf fails around autoheader and autoconf:
rebuilding include/ap_config_auto.h.in
NONE:0: m4: ERROR: EOF in string
autom4te: m4 failed with exit status: 1
autoheader: autom4te failed with exit status: 1
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Auftrag von Nick Kew
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Oktober 2008 12:18
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Broken trunk build
I've just tried a clean trunk build, to play with Paul's simple MPM.
Unfortunately buildconf fails around
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:51AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
Great!
- The name. Someone suggest something better than Simple.
I like naming projects by grepping the dictionary, and
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:51AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
Great!
- The name. Someone suggest something better than
Nick Kew wrote:
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
[SNIP] ...
This m4 is nasty!
+1 on that
Inspired by a combination of my own work and Paul´s simple MPM,
I´ve created a mod_unixd. Basically it´s unixd.c, turned into
a module. In particular, it reintroduces the stuff marked TODO
in Paul´s simple_setup_privs, but puts it in a child_init hook.
So supporting unixd-equivalent stuff on
Nick Kew wrote:
Inspired by a combination of my own work and Paul´s simple MPM,
I´ve created a mod_unixd. Basically it´s unixd.c, turned into
a module. In particular, it reintroduces the stuff marked TODO
in Paul´s simple_setup_privs, but puts it in a child_init hook.
So supporting
Is COW ability of fork important enough with modern memory and operating
systems, to maintain two significantly different code paths for spawning
children processes?
Background:
One of the things I would like to do on the Simple MPM is unify how
child processes are created on win32 and unix.
Paul Querna wrote:
Doing this could also solves some issues with on some platforms[2].
...
[2] - https://trac.macports.org/ticket/16340
See also:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44250
http://bugs.python.org/issue1676
Paul Querna wrote:
One of the things I would like to do on the Simple MPM is unify how
child processes are created on win32 and unix.
On Win32, there is no fork, so roughly speaking what the current winnt
MPM creates a new process, and feeds the configuration over a pipe to
the new child.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
One of the things I would like to do on the Simple MPM is unify how child
processes are created on win32 and unix.
On Win32, there is no fork, so roughly speaking what the current winnt MPM
creates
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I think for a large configurations, the copy on write is a
significant optimisation - you can have large numbers of processes,
and a large configuration, and get away with it, as practically the
configuration is only memory resident once.
I think it
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Feels like we're going from lets be portable to if it's not the
latestgreatest linux-distro that I use lets drop it. Sounds like a bad
decision to me.
...
And lets continue being portable, please.
FWIW, I don't believe in latest and greatest linux distro as a good
On 10/29/2008 05:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: niq
Date: Wed Oct 29 09:41:10 2008
New Revision: 708935
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=708935view=rev
Log:
Introduce modules/system, and mod_unixd.c
mod_unixd.c is only os/unix/unixd.c, turned into a module.
(or more
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/29/2008 05:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: niq
Date: Wed Oct 29 09:41:10 2008
New Revision: 708935
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=708935view=rev
Log:
Introduce modules/system, and mod_unixd.c
mod_unixd.c is only os/unix/unixd.c, turned into a
On 10/29/2008 08:40 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I think for a large configurations, the copy on write is a
significant optimisation - you can have large numbers of processes,
and a large configuration, and get away with it, as practically the
configuration
One of the things I've noticed on a practical level, is that forked children
in worker wind up being linearized within themselves to some extent.
Think of how the buffered logs work in mod_log_config (one buffer protected
by a mutex). (I can't think of the correct term for it right now. Basically
On 10/29/08 3:40 PM, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, maybe that is a good thing, since then they would be ported
forward and work on win32 too.
Can you delete open files in win32 yet?? If not, most of my stuff will not
port...
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner
Paul Querna wrote:
FWIW, I don't believe in latest and greatest linux distro as a good
measure, but I do believe that there are only a few platforms that we
should make design decisions around:
- Linux 2.6
- FreeBSD 7
- Solaris 10
- Windows Vista
If something is *fast* or *good* and can be
Akins, Brian wrote:
One of the things I've noticed on a practical level, is that forked children
in worker wind up being linearized within themselves to some extent.
Think of how the buffered logs work in mod_log_config (one buffer protected
by a mutex). (I can't think of the correct term for
Dan Poirier wrote:
I like the idea of replacing ON with AND and OR. It would not
only provide more control, but make it explicit what kind of merging
was going to happen.
I have mixed thoughts about changing the default to OFF.
Cons: That would mean every container directive would have to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=708935view=rev
Log:
Introduce modules/system, and mod_unixd.c
WTF? Why do we need dueling modules/arch/ and modules/system/ pragmas?
Can we be consistent please? modules/arch/unix/ sounds like a perfect fit.
Paul Querna wrote:
FWIW, I don't believe in latest and greatest linux distro as a good
measure, but I do believe that there are only a few platforms that we
should make design decisions around:
- Linux 2.6
- FreeBSD 7
- Solaris 10
- Windows Vista
the last one, there are too many IT
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 10/29/08 3:40 PM, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, maybe that is a good thing, since then they would be ported
forward and work on win32 too.
Can you delete open files in win32 yet?? If not, most of my stuff will not
port...
No. Delete-on-close
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Chris Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The MergeAuthzRules directive is renamed SatisfySections and
take three possible values, Off, All, and And. The default is Off,
meaning that as directory configuration sections are merged,
new authz configurations
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=708935view=rev
Log:
Introduce modules/system, and mod_unixd.c
WTF? Why do we need dueling modules/arch/ and modules/system/ pragmas?
Can we be consistent please? modules/arch/unix/ sounds like a
Touching bin/httpd.exe.local just got me out from under a restart
failure with a third-party module that provide a modified copy of the
openssl libraries. Upon restart mod_ssl would glom onto the
already-loaded (and modified) SSL libraries (and fail due to something
like a missing
Eric Covener wrote:
I tend to prefer something closer to the old name, especially with the
Satisfy containers being optional. IOTW the sections here may not
be something explicit the user can look back to.
(Maybe IOW, in other words? :-)
They should be: since Directory and friends all
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28 15:12
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
...
One of the major departures is that it doesn't use any of the functions
from os/unixd/, which I believe is a good long term decision, since I
would
Bing Swen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28 15:12
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
...
One of the major departures is that it doesn't use any of the
functions from os/unixd/, which I believe is a good long term
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-30 12:10
Bing Swen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28 15:12
Hope you've included 64-bit Windows in mind. Make x64 Windows a
first-class citizen in httpd-2.4.x, please.
How is it not a first class citizen in 2.2.x?
Here are some reasons:
1. Currently
34 matches
Mail list logo
