On 06/07/2013 08:19 AM, Sean Beck wrote:
I'm looking through and example I found
herehttp://ctemplate.sourceforge.net/example/mod_example/mod_tplexample.c.htmland
it says this about the method used by post_config():
This routine is called to perform any module-specific fixing of header
fields,
You guys are awesome.
So it should only run once then? Also for tear down of the stuff is there a
different hook that I could load?
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
* Run the post_config function for each module
* @param pconf The config pool
*
On 06/07/2013 08:59 AM, Sean Beck wrote:
You guys are awesome.
So it should only run once then? Also for tear down of the stuff is there a
different hook that I could load?
It still runs twice. Tear down should be registering a pool clean up
function, and using that.
On 06/07/2013 09:23 AM, Sean Beck wrote:
Should I give it ptemp as the pool? Or should I create a new one in
post_config()?
When you set up your ActiveMQ connections, you will be using a pool to
allocate the memory used. Use that pool. Otherwise, your cleanup and
your config for the
Currently when I create the connections I don't use a pool for anything.
I'm using the fusemq-c library. I did notice that libstomp uses a pool
though.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Joe Lewis j...@joe-lewis.com wrote:
On 06/07/2013 09:23 AM, Sean Beck wrote:
Should I give it ptemp as the
On 06/07/2013 09:29 AM, Sean Beck wrote:
Currently when I create the connections I don't use a pool for anything.
I'm using the fusemq-c library. I did notice that libstomp uses a pool
though.
If the memory allocation isn't done through the apr_* routines, I'm not
sure what pool to use. The
All I really need a pool for is so I have something to pass as a parameter.
I see here https://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/1.3/group___pool_cleanup.htmlthat
apr_pool_cleanup_register actually takes two functions as parameters.
The one I would want is plain_cleanup, right? If I understand pools
On 06/07/2013 09:52 AM, Sean Beck wrote:
All I really need a pool for is so I have something to pass as a parameter.
I see here https://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/1.3/group___pool_cleanup.htmlthat
apr_pool_cleanup_register actually takes two functions as parameters.
The one I would want is
Got it. I'll use the pconf one. Thanks for the help Joe!
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Joe Lewis j...@joe-lewis.com wrote:
On 06/07/2013 09:52 AM, Sean Beck wrote:
All I really need a pool for is so I have something to pass as a
parameter.
I see here
On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 05 Jun 2013, at 3:00 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been playing with this in my sandbox, it adds a socket readable
callback to
On 07 Jun 2013, at 2:55 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Yeah, I think conn_rec would make sense if we were a single-threaded
server, but considering the hybrid that we are, the real thing we're
concerned about are the raw sockets. This also makes more sense
with things like SPDY,
mod_lua is still marked experimental because we did not yet expect it to
be complete or the APIs to be stable. So we did expect and wanted to
allow incompatible changes.
Now that a few of us are working on it I expect it would be useful if
backports could be done quicker for some time until we
On 07.06.2013 18:26, Rainer Jung wrote:
mod_lua is still marked experimental because we did not yet expect it to
be complete or the APIs to be stable. So we did expect and wanted to
allow incompatible changes.
Now that a few of us are working on it I expect it would be useful if
backports could
+1... this thread is sufficient for voting :)
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
On 07.06.2013 18:26, Rainer Jung wrote:
mod_lua is still marked experimental because we did not yet expect it to
be complete or the APIs to be stable. So we did expect and
On 06/07/2013 07:53 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
+1... this thread is sufficient for voting :)
+1 in that case! :)
With regards,
Daniel
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org
mailto:fua...@apache.org wrote:
On 07.06.2013 18:26, Rainer Jung wrote:
So I plan to start a vote an switching mod_lua in 2.4 to CTR. Please let
me know your objections if there are any.
+1
I don't know if this was done on purpose, but 2.4.x and trunk still have
some differences.
CJ
Le 07/06/2013 13:51, minf...@apache.org a écrit :
Author: minfrin
Date: Fri Jun 7 11:51:28 2013
New Revision: 1490599
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1490599
Log:
mod_lua: Sync 2.4 branch with trunk.
Ok, I've just updated STATUS and seen last entry...
CJ
Le 08/06/2013 07:30, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
I don't know if this was done on purpose, but 2.4.x and trunk still
have some differences.
CJ
Le 07/06/2013 13:51, minf...@apache.org a écrit :
Author: minfrin
Date: Fri Jun 7 11:51:28
18 matches
Mail list logo
