thanks but unfortunately it seems mod_include #include virtual does not
appear to support requests to external servers (must not contain a scheme
or hostname - only path and query string).
Regardless, I also tried ap_sub_req_lookup_uri():
static apr_status_t x_response_filter(ap_filter_t
On 10/27/2011 3:15 PM, s...@apache.org wrote:
Use apr_pregsub_ex() and maxlen = 0 for unlimited in mod_substitute.
Uhm... wha?
This was not intended as a final solution. Besides, one case already had
unlimited (but using argument APR_SIZE_MAX instead of 0).
Not acceptable. Choose a
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I think 2.4.0 GA at AC is destined to be a dot zero release (most
emphasis on the zero, as in null). Not suggesting we don't do it,
simply that nobody, including yourself, will be at liberty to change
scoreboard datum, api interfaces, etc.
Are we
On Nov 2, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
I think a timeout should be handled like it is now as failing on
a slow client is IMHO a desired action by the admin. If he wants to give
the client more time he should configure a higher timeout.
For other errors like 'Resource
On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:43 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I think 2.4.0 GA at AC is destined to be a dot zero release (most
emphasis on the zero, as in null). Not suggesting we don't do it,
simply that nobody, including yourself, will be at liberty to
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 3. November 2011 12:53
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: prefetch proxy
On Nov 2, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
I think a timeout should be handled like it is now
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 3. November 2011 12:53
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: prefetch proxy
On Nov 2, 2011, at 7:40 AM,
- Forwarded message from halfdog m...@halfdog.net -
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:55:26 +
From: halfdog m...@halfdog.net
To: full-disclos...@lists.grok.org.uk
CC: Joe Orton jor...@apache.org, secur...@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Integer Overflow in Apache ap_pregsub via mod-setenvif
On 11/3/2011 1:29 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Not acceptable. Choose a bound. unlimited is not acceptable.
What can a content filter do to handle the error? Does returning
AP_FILTER_ERROR do any
good? The headers may have been sent already.
I'd suggest a top bound of 1MB, if the admin
On 11/3/2011 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Not sure what you mean... we've added additional fields, always at the
end of the struct, during releases with just a minor MMN bump before.
To the scoreboard?
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:43 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I think 2.4.0 GA at AC is destined to be a dot zero release (most
emphasis on the zero, as in null). Not suggesting we don't do it,
simply that
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/3/2011 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Not sure what you mean... we've added additional fields, always at the
end of the struct, during releases with just a minor MMN bump before.
To the scoreboard?
There are functions like
On Nov 3, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
I'm fine with with having a set number of retries with EAGAIN and
treating a timeout as an error. If we exhaust the retries, we
simply break out of the prefetch loop and continue on, and let
Continue without prefetch in the EAGAIN
On Nov 3, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Rüdiger's original point was on
track: EAGAIN here is a bug to fix somewhere since EAGAIN from
blocking read is should-not-occur, and this code doesn't need to grow
another error path.
From some
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Rüdiger's original point was on
track: EAGAIN here is a bug to fix somewhere since EAGAIN from
blocking read is should-not-occur, and
On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Rüdiger's original point was on
track: EAGAIN here is a bug to fix somewhere since
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org wrote:
On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Rüdiger's original
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org wrote:
On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Jeff
On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
I'm not disputing that there is some undiagnosed situation where
APR_ETIMEUP is seen.
I am looking for confirmation that APR_ETIMEUP is the expected value.
It's hard to diagnose what the value should be... all I know
is that what is being
fwiw: I can recreate this at will...
The setup: the jenkins-cli jarfile with Jenkins running in
Winstone/Jetty/Tomcat/JBoss/Doesn'tMatter and Apache frontending
Jenkins with a ProxyPass.
Trying to access Jenkins thru Apache via:
java jenkins-cli.jar -s http://apache.example.com/
will cause
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Rüdiger's original point was on
track: EAGAIN here is a bug to fix somewhere since EAGAIN from
blocking read is should-not-occur,
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Greg Ames ames.g...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Rüdiger's original point was on
track: EAGAIN here is a bug to
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Greg Ames ames.g...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
I worked on a bug about a
23 matches
Mail list logo
