-- Forwarded message --
From: Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 1 févr. 2007 20:50
Subject: Re: mod_python 3.3.1 available for testing
To: Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I've built the 3.3.1 binaries for Windows, you can download it from :
http://nicolas.lehuen.com
Following my tests on Windows, and knowing that 3.3.1 = 3.3.0b + a
version number change, I give my +1 on the release.
Regards,
Nicolas
2007/2/1, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think we have sufficiently tested 3.3.1 and it is time for the core
group to vote on a release.
This vote is
+1 for me too !
Nicolas
2006/12/12, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
core +1 on releasing it into the wild
grisha
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
Test results so far, FYI. How long shall we wait until we kick it up to
the
next level?
- jim
+1 FreeBSD 6.1,
Guys,First of all sorry for not intervening in the discussion earlier, I haven't had much time for mod_python development lately (hell, not much time for anything except working). The build procedure quoted by Graham at
http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-September/022092.html
Indeed, the APACHESRC variable has a slightly misleading name, since it doesn't need the full blown source installation. When building mod_python I'm using a stock Win32 Apache 2.0 or 2.2 binary build downloaded from
http://httpd.apache.org/, not a source distribution. It may or may not work with
this sound right?
- Jeff
- Original Message -
From:
Nicolas
Lehuen
To:
Graham Dumpleton
Cc:
python-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006
21:04
Subject: Re: mod_python
3.3.0-dev-20061109 tests on Win32
Indeed, the APACHESRC variable has
Hi Paul,I have built binaries for Python 2.5 and Apache 2.0 and 2.2 :http://nicolas.lehuen.com/download/mod_pythonDo make sure that you download the version that matches your Apache version, as they are incompatible.
I've ran the unit test successfully except for the two known failures related to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 12/10/2006, at 10:47 PM, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
I've ran the unit test successfully except for the two known failures related to server.register_cleanup and apache.register_cleanup, so those binaries can be officially released.Can you remind me what Apache actually does on Win32
Sorry I usually don't use the VS GUI to build mod_python, only the dist/build_installer.bat script. I didn't even notice there was a VS .vcproject file until now :). That's why I haven't noticed the problem.In fact, I'm all in favor of dropping the VCPROJ file, because maintaining it could
What Sébastien proposes is the kind of dispatching mechanism used in Django, and (without regular expressions) in Rails and Routes (http://routes.groovie.org/). This tends to prove that some people find it useful.
The proposed implementation, however, is another story. There are the problems that
Hi,Here are the Win32 binaries for mod_python 3.2.10 :http://nicolas.lehuen.com/download/mod_python/There is one version for Python 2.3 + Apache
2.0, a version for Python 2.4 + Apache 2.0 and a version for Python 2.4 + Apache 2.2.All three version have passed the unit tests, so we can release
+1 too.2006/7/26, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think it's time for a core vote on the 3.2.10 release, as no more testresults have appeared since Saturday.This vote is for the mod_python core only (Jim, Graham, Grisha and Nicolas).I am:+1 release now
JimTest summary:+1 Fedora Core 5, Apache
Just to make sure I've reinstalled my Python 2.3 test environment...So even if I've already voted, I've got an additional +1 Windows 2000 Server SP4, Apache 2.0.58 (mpm-winnt), Python 2.3.5Regards,
Nicolas2006/7/26, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+1 too.2006/7/26, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED
+1 Windows XP SP2, Apache 2.0.58 (mpm-winnt), Python 2.4.3
Regards,
Nicolas2006/7/19, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The mod_python 3.2.10 tarball is available for testing.Part way through the release process for 3.2.9 a fix was found forseveral memory leaks (MODPYTHON-172). We've decided to
OK, I'm currently checking in the fixes you suggested on the trunk. Too bad we cannot write a unit test that checks for memory leaks.Jim, Graham, what shall we do for the 3.2.9 release ? Shall we keep on with the current branch or backport the fixes ?
Regards,Nicolas2006/7/9, Harold Ship [EMAIL
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-172?page=all ]
Nicolas Lehuen resolved MODPYTHON-172:
--
Fix Version: 3.3
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed in the trunk, we need to apply changes from revision #420275 if we want
to backport
Yes, I've done the same except that I've used Py_DECREF since the references are guarded by previous non null tests.https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_python/trunk/src/util.c
Regards,Nicolas2006/7/9, Harold J. Ship [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just
to be sure, this is the change I've made to
Yeah, I forgot about the appendix C in the documentation. I'm going to correct this ASAP.I know about the sizehint problem, I'm currently working on it. I just wanted to fix it in a different commit to make backporting more easy. Also, I want to write a unit test for it. This should be done in a
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-179?page=all ]
Nicolas Lehuen resolved MODPYTHON-179:
--
Fix Version: 3.3
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed and added two unit tests on the trunk. Apply revision #420288 if this
needs to be backported
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-172?page=comments#action_12419906
]
Nicolas Lehuen commented on MODPYTHON-172:
--
I've just backported the fix into the 3.2 branch.
Memory leak with util.fieldstorage using mod_python 3.2.8
Hi Harold,With Visual Studio .NET 2003, it's quite easy, just cd into the dist directory and launch build_installer.bat. You should eventually get an installer into the dist/dist directory. Note that with Apache 2.2
, you may need to tweak the setup.py.in file manually a little
Yeah Harold, thanks for the time you are spending on this bug.I'm not ignoring you either, I'm just on vacation, trying to disconnect from my work in particular and the net in general. Not so easy as this mail tends to show.
I'll have a look at this too when I come back to
I've got :+1 Windows XP SP2, Apache 2.0.58 (mpm_winnt), Python 2.4.3But, and it's my fault for not having tested this for a long time :-1 Windows XP SP2, Apache 2.2.2 (mpm_winnt), Python 2.4.3
Only two tests fail but with a segfault, it's test_srv_register_cleanup and test_apache_register_cleanup.
Hi,
The subject of this thread is about mod_python 3.2.8, yet you report
using mod_python 3.1.3. Which version have you detected the memory leak
in ? There are a bunch of leaks that have been fixed since 3.1.3...Regards,Nicolas2006/6/30, Harold Ship (JIRA) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:[
+1 Windows XP SP2, Apache 2.0.58, ActivePython 2.4.3, mod_python 3.2.9-rc3
Nicolas
2006/6/25, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The mod_python 3.2.9-rc3 tarball is available for testing. This release
adds support for apache 2.2 as well as some other useful backports from
the development branch.
+1 Windows XP SP2, ActivePython 2.4.3, Apache 2.0.58
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/6/23, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK, this time for real. :)
The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is available for testing. This release
adds support for apache 2.2 as well as some other useful backports from
the
* How are applications supposed to perform write operations on a
FieldStorage, in 3.3 and the future?
Personally I never considered writing to FieldStorage. I always thought
of it as a read-only representation of a submitted form, but then that's
just my mental map.
It's a pretty uncommon
the
non-debug version when faced by a faulty mod_python thread state
management code... I'll try to see if we still have the segfault that
could be sometimes observed when the Apache server is stopped, as it
may be related.
Best regards,
Nicolas
2006/5/9, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicolas
I've forgot to mention the platform : as usual for me, it's Windows XP SP2.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/5/20, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Graham,
After a few interesting weeks, I finally manage to get some time to
help on mod_python.
I've ran the tests on the latest Subversion revision
between multiple threads, which should not be possible. If someone
has an idea, please help me, because I'm not really up to date about
thread state management, so I'll have to read a fair bit of
documentation before understanding what's happening there.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/5/20, Nicolas Lehuen
PM, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
OK, it seems that my last hypothesis was the good one : mod_python is
doing things with thread states that are frowned upon by debug build.
The tests are only performed in the debug build, so that's why we had
no problem with the release build.
The tests are found
Thank you very much, Justin !Regards,Nicolas2006/4/20, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-python-dev/I'm not sure how this slipped through the cracks, but we missed thepython-dev@ and python-cvs@ list in our collection of web archives for
Hi Graham,It looks like with mod_python 3.2.8, both req.filename and req.hlist.directory are normalized, so your latest changes may introduce a regression for those who expect req.hlist.directory to be normalized.
Regards,Nicolas2006/4/18, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi Graham,Here is the test handler I've used :from mod_python import apachedef handler(req): req.content_type = 'text/plain' req.write(req.hlist.directory+'\n') req.write(req.filename+'\n'
) return apache.OKIf I use :DocumentRoot c:\\apache22\\htdocsDirectory c:\\apache22\\htdocs # ... SetHandler
it to behave differently as how it determinesreq.hlist.directory is different to before.Thanks.Graham
On 18/04/2006, at 4:33 AM, Nicolas Lehuen wrote: Hi Graham, Here is the test handler I've used : from mod_python import apache def handler(req):
req.content_type = 'text/plain' req.write
Just as a note, I'm still struggling with Apache 2.2 to make the test suite run with the latest svn version (everything seems OK with Apache 2.0.55).I still have a problem while testing req.auth_type(). It looks like the authentication system was changed in Apache
2.2, and that the current test
OK, I'm +1 on the Won't fix status.I'm not proficient enough in the way unpickling works, but the fact that you cannot specify any namespace in which classes or functions names have to be resolved makes it quite clear that dynamic imports + unpickling functions and classes = not possible.
Hi,Just FYI, here are the results of my latest build tests with mod_python SVN revision 387864 :+1 ActivePython 2.4.2.10 / Apache 2.0.55 / Windows XP SP2 / old importer
+1 ActivePython 2.4.2.10 / Apache 2.0.55 / Windows XP SP2 / new importer+1 ActivePython 2.3.5.? / Apache 2.0.55 / Windows 2000
2006/3/22, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicolas Lehuen wrote ..
2006/3/22, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However I have a -1 on Python 2.2 with a LOT of test failures, but I
guess we won't support Python 2.2 for mod_python 3.3 ?
Sorry, my -1 was due to a configuration
I've tested with and without the new importer on Windows XP SP2 +
Python 2.4.2 + Apache 2.2.0 and everything works except the
test_req_auth_type test, which signals a 500 error. This is what the
error_log contains about this test :
[Wed Mar 22 07:16:03 2006] [warn] mod_python
If the new importer isn't on by default, I don't see any reason why
you should not commit it to subversion, quite the contrary.
Therefore I'm +1 on the subject.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/3/19, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 14/03/2006, at 12:23 PM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
I find I work
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-104?page=comments#action_12370839
]
Nicolas Lehuen commented on MODPYTHON-104:
--
Same problem with SSI_CREATE_ERROR_BUCKET on Win32, but at compile time.
Allow Python code callouts with mod_include
Oops, my mistake, I haven't seen that the hidden version of the
function was called instead of the public one...
In any case there is a real problem with the unit tests since they
passed before my change and still pass now.
I still would like to refactor the unit tests but I've been quite busy
Yup, I think it's the thing to do.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/25, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Now that JIRA is responding again I thought I'd update the status of
some issues.
I've created a new JIRA version for 3.2.8.
Version 3.2 is still shown as unreleased. I assume the proper action
Indeed :)
2006/2/22, Ron Reisor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know you're going ahead with 3.2.8 already, but I thought this would be
interesting:
+1 Mac OS X 10.4.5 Intel Core Duo, apache 2.0.55 mpm-prefork, python 2.4.2
cheers,
Ron
Ron Reisor [EMAIL PROTECTED] (RWR3)
University of Delaware
OK, sorry, I was mislead by the fact that there were 3.2.5b binaries
in the dist directory.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/21, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
they're out there:
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/modpython/win/3.2.8/
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Hi
+1
Excellent summary, Graham.
Maybe we could ask on the mod_pyhon mailing list who is stacking
non-content handlers, especially if registered dynamically, and for
what purpose ? This way we could make sure that no one actually relies
on the current cludgy behaviour.
But I agree with you, it's
, 20 Feb 2006, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
+1 core vote
Nicolas Lehuen wrote ..
+1 core vote
2006/2/20, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+1 core vote
Jim
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
Based on summary below, +1 from for putting it out there.
Grisha
Graham
Oops, I've sent this mail a bit too fast...
As usual, all three binary versions are available here :
http://nicolas.lehuen.com/download/mod_python/
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/20, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+1 mod_python 3.2.8 + Apache/2.0.55 + Python/2.2.3 + Windows 2000 SP4
+1
SVN
trunk)
Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 mod_python 3.2.8 + Apache/2.0.55 + Python/2.2.3 + Windows 2000 SP4
+1 mod_python 3.2.8 + Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.3.5 + Windows
2000 SP4
+1 mod_python 3.2.8 + Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.4.2 + Windows XP SP2
Barry
beta. Do you want me
to resubmit this problem via JIRA ? Or just to resend the required fixes ?
Cheers,
Michel
--On lundi 20 février 2006 16:18 -0500 Graham Dumpleton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 core vote
Nicolas Lehuen wrote ..
+1 core vote
2006/2/20, Jim Gallacher
will be overwritten.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/21, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Michel,
I've tested your patch on Win32 + Apache 2.2 and it mostly works
(compilation + unit tests) - except for the changes in the PSP lexer
parser. They now includ unistd.h which was previously hidden for Win32
or two (given that the Win32 source code is
not even available right now).
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/14, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2006/2/14, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
If we want to go down the path of having interim 3.2 bug rollup releases
while 3.3 is being developed
2006/2/14, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Based on today's traffic on the mailing lists, I think that we should
go for a short-term 3.2.8 release of mod_python, with certified Apache
2.2 support on multiple platforms. The code is only there but I
suppose we'll need a lot of testing, so
Hi,
I've built Apache 2.2 and tested mod_python SVN trunk with it.
The two register_cleanup tests fail. Apparently it's because the test
code registers a cleanup function giving the current request as
parameter. Of course when the cleanup function is called, the request
object is no longer
Hi,
I'm currently reading the feature section from mod_perl. Initially, I
was trying to find information about how they cope with
multithreading, multiple interpreter instantiation and code reloading,
but I stumbled upon this :
http://perl.apache.org/start/tips/config.html
Now, I can't stand
http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/intro/overview.html#Threads_Support
Regards,
Nicolas
and using an
interpreter pool may be an interesting optimisation, though. But I
guess it's a rather complicated one.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/13, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/intro/overview.html
Hi,
There is something I'd like to do for the 3.3 version : it is to
refactor the test suite. It's more a chore than real development, but
the current test suite is slowly becoming big and quite difficult to
maintain.
What I'd like to do is simply split the test runner and the published
tests in
Hi David,
One thing I don't understand is why you have foreign PythonOption
definitions in your test setup. Are you sure you have re-created a
clean testconf.py file from testconf.py.in ? I've write a little bit
of documentation in test/README, please try to follow it.
It seems to me that the
OK so my core group vote is +1 for this release.
It has been tested on a wide array of OSes, both threaded and forked
MPMs, Python 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, so I guess it's okay. A threaded test
on MacOSX and Solaris would have been great but maybe the recommended
MPM on those platform is the forked one,
2006/2/4, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jim, Nicolas
Would it make sense to change test_Session_Session_conf() function in
unit tests to something like:
def test_Session_Session_conf(self):
import tempfile
tempdir = tempfile.gettempdir()
database =
+1 trunk rev 374588 + Apache/2.0.55 + Python/2.2.3 + Windows 2000 SP4
+1 trunk rev 374588 + Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.3.5 + Windows 2000 SP4
+1 trunk rev 374588 + Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.4.2 + Windows XP SP2
All three installers for win32 are available at
.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/2, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 02/02/2006, at 5:42 PM, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
That's it ! People with Python 2.2 could use PythonImport
mod_python.python22 INTERPRETER_NAME in their configuration file to
make sure mod_python supports Python 2.2. The only problem
My official vote is eventually -1 for 3.2.6, see the previous
discussion for why I've changed my mind.
However I'm +1 on releasing 3.2.7 without a restrained testing period,
not a long one like for 3.2.6.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/2, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know you said no discussion
2006/2/2, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Okay, false alarm (I think). Have got myself worked up over nothing.
I missed something very important:
timestamp = fstat(opened.fileno())[-2]
That is the '[-2]' in the above.
I feel like a goose now.
I still though question why file/fstat
2006/2/2, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Note that up until now I hadn't even looked over how this new module
importer was implemented. I knew it wasn't going to solve various of the
existing module importer problems and I knew it was actually going to
introduce some new issues that would
2.2 to Python 2.4 (I've yet to
test it on Python 2.5), whereas a solution using PythonImport or any
custom tweaking of the configuration would require a special case in
the test suite.
Now I'm going back to sleep.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/2, Daniel J. Popowich [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicolas Lehuen
2006/2/2, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If a formal decision was made, then it's a done deal, right? If not
and uses of 2.3 have slipped in then perhaps it's a done deal anyway
because no one can stomach the thought of taking out the 2.3-isms at
this late date.
My impression is that
OK, I've changed cache.py so that it uses stat() then open() the file
if it needs to be reloaded. I've also added a unit test that makes
sure the module cache is behaving as expected.
Graham, I don't think the stat() / open() / fstat() sequence is
required. How would that improve accuracy ?
OK, I've reverted my changes. I left python22.py in place, because I
still hope to be able to use it with PythonImport. The only problem is
being able to define it in the unit tests.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/2, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2006/2/2, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED
2006/2/2, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicolas Lehuen wrote ..
OK, I've reverted my changes. I left python22.py in place, because I
still hope to be able to use it with PythonImport. The only problem is
being able to define it in the unit tests.
I plead dumb. What is the connection
OK, so shall we schedule the 3.2.x release for 2007, then ?
As for the Apache 2.2 version, what if we roll in your suggested
patch, Jim, then discover a bunch of problem related to it during the
beta tests ? Will we wait until they are all fixed to release the 3.2
version ? Apache 2.2 is quite
2006/1/26, Mike Looijmans [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Two comments:
1. (bug): The acquire() call should be *outside* the try ... finally
block. You do not want to release a lock that you did not aquire.
2. (optimization): If you are not planning to change the path, you do
not have to aquire the lock.
Foundation, so that's only a prospective question, not a
binding one ;).
In any case, kudos for your work !
(I cc this to mod_python developers mailing list)
8--8--
-- Forwarded message --
From: Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 24 janv
/stable release.
I propose that for starters those people are:
me (I'm also in the Apache HTTP Server PMC)
Jim Gallacher
Nicolas Lehuen
Graham Dumpleton
+1 here, but since the build process and typical MPM differs among
platforms, could we see a list that this group represents? I'm most
SP2
Apache 2.0.54
Python 2.4.2
--
Mike Looijmans
Philips Natlab / Topic Automation
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
You can fetch the Win32 version for Python 2.3 and Python 2.4 here :
http://nicolas.lehuen.com/download/mod_python/
Nicolas Lehuen
Graham Dumpleton
Just to clarify this a bit - I think a +1 on successful test for a
particular OS/whatever combination from any of the above people is NOT the
same as the binding +1 Roy's referring to. So when we're done collecting
+1's which are just test results from
You can fetch the Win32 version for Python 2.3 and Python 2.4 here :
http://nicolas.lehuen.com/download/mod_python/
I have successfully tested and give my +1 for :
Windows 2000 Server SP4, Python 2.3
Windows XP Pro SP2, Python 2.4
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/1/16, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
I'm back after a few days without Internet access...
I also have the same test failure as Graham. Here is my error log :
[Thu Jan 12 20:11:24 2006] [error] [client 127.0.0.1]
req_add_empty_handler_string
[Thu Jan 12 20:11:24 2006] [notice] mod_python: (Re)importing module ''
[Thu Jan 12
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-93?page=all ]
Nicolas Lehuen updated MODPYTHON-93:
Fix Version: 3.3
Version: 3.2
(was: 3.3)
Improve util.FieldStorage efficiency
Hi Grisha,
Having a look at the bug list I don't see anything that should prevent
us from releasing the 3.2 version. There doesn't seem to be any bug
due to some regression, all the new bugs were also found in 3.1. So I
think we won't disappoint anyone !
I truly think we should not try to be
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-104?page=all ]
Nicolas Lehuen updated MODPYTHON-104:
-
Fix Version: 3.3
Allow Python code callouts with mod_include (SSI).
--
Key: MODPYTHON
2005/12/28, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Grisha, I have though asked for a small change to be made which will
allow me to make available a proposed new module importer when its done
and for people be able to trial it without having to patch their source
code. See:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-97?page=all ]
Nicolas Lehuen resolved MODPYTHON-97:
-
Fix Version: 3.2
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Nicolas Lehuen
Fixed this by reverting the changes from MODPYTHON-15
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-15?page=all ]
Nicolas Lehuen reopened MODPYTHON-15:
-
Reopened to fix MODPYTHON-97.
Publisher : iterable return values should be corretly published
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-99?page=comments#action_12360041
]
Nicolas Lehuen commented on MODPYTHON-99:
-
Modifying util.c so that tuple_from_array_header and tuple_from_method_list
return an empty tuple instead of None fixes
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-99?page=comments#action_12360042
]
Nicolas Lehuen commented on MODPYTHON-99:
-
OK, if we modify tuple_from_array_header and tuple_from_method_list, here are
the members that would be defined
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-96?page=all ]
Nicolas Lehuen resolved MODPYTHON-96:
-
Fix Version: 3.2
Resolution: Fixed
Accessing req.boundary causes crash.
Key: MODPYTHON
David Nicolas Lehuen wrote: David, Though your code seems perfect, I'm a bit worried about installing a
service, even temporary, for testing purposes. It adds another point where the test could fail for setup reasons, and should the test end unexpectedly, the tester's system has an
extra service which
2005/12/5, David Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicolas Lehuen wrote: As for the colophon : I initially built this chart on Excel 2003, then feeling a bit guilty, I decided to switch to OpenOffice 2 (developer release). I have then discovered that OpenOffice is far less intuitive
in the domain
2005/12/5, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2005/12/5, David Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicolas Lehuen wrote: As for the colophon : I initially built this chart on Excel 2003, then feeling a bit guilty, I decided to switch to OpenOffice 2 (developer release). I have then discovered
installedyet.GrahamOn 06/12/2005, at 8:02 AM, Nicolas Lehuen wrote: Hi David, To follow my old promise, I've just checked in a bit of documentation
on how to run the test suite, including on Win32. I've also added a few self-test in the test module, so that the most obvious setup mistakes
Done.2005/12/5, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote: Understood. Can I use the branches/nlehuen directory to store this kind of work in progress ? I'm pretty used to use SVN as a backup policy...Yes, that'd be much better, this way we avoid
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-78?page=all ]
Nicolas Lehuen updated MODPYTHON-78:
Summary: No support for Apache 2.2 yet (was: No support for Apache 2.1 yet)
Now that Apache 2.2 is out, and mod_python 3.2 close to release, maybe
guys find it worth publishing, why not.
Regarding 2c, I solved the problem by dropping OpenOffice and doing it in HTML (I exported from OO to HTML and cleaned up the mess manually). I've checked in the result in the Doc directory.Regards,Nicolas
2005/12/3, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicolas
version we're building against, maybe ?
Regards,Nicolas2005/12/3, Jorey Bump [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicolas Lehuen wrote: http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi Apache 2.2 add-in modules are not compatible with Apache 2.0 or 1.3 modules. If you are running third party add-in modules, you will need
2005/11/30, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At this point I think we should leave parsed_uri alone, as it seems todo the correct thing - if not the desired thing. At a minimum we shouldexpand the documentation to warn people of the limitations. I still
think it would be useful to have a tuple
Ooops from your definition it looks like this holds :
req.unparsed_uri = req.uri + req.path_info
So we'd better use unparsed_uri to reconstitute the original absolute URL.
Before the publisher computes path_info it must be empty, so in this case req.unparsed_uri == req.uri. I'll check this.
2005/11/30, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
Nicolas Lehuen wrote: Ah, while I'm at it, knowing the DocumentRoot of the current VirtualHost
would be great, too. But that's another story.I don't know that story. Is there a problem with req.document_root()?
Well, I think I'm doing a bad
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
