Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

On 12/08/2007 04:04 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 11/27/2007 07:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: With APR now out, I think we're close to releasing 1.3.40 and 2.2.7... Anyone opposed with that gameplan? There are 9 backport proposals currently in the STATUS file and 7 of them only miss one

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

Hi, On 12/08/2007 04:04 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: Thanks folks for all the reviewing work done. From my perspective there is now nothing left between us and 2.2.7. Jim do you still volunteer to RM? I see a new small issue with mod_proxy_ajp which I've not yet tracked down; maybe my config is

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

On 12/09/2007 04:47 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Hi, On 12/08/2007 04:04 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: Thanks folks for all the reviewing work done. From my perspective there is now nothing left between us and 2.2.7. Jim do you still volunteer to RM? I see a new small issue with mod_proxy_ajp

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

Hi Ruediger, On 12/09/2007 04:47 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Could you please post these warning messages and your config, such that others can have a view in parallel? sure; warnings: [Sat Dec 08 22:07:12 2007] [warn] worker ajp://localhost:9009 already used by another worker [Sat Dec 08

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

Guenter Knauf wrote: On 12/08/2007 04:04 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: Thanks folks for all the reviewing work done. From my perspective there is now nothing left between us and 2.2.7. Jim do you still volunteer to RM? I see a new small issue with mod_proxy_ajp which I've not yet tracked down;

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

Ruediger Pluem wrote: Thanks folks for all the reviewing work done. From my perspective there is now nothing left between us and 2.2.7. FYI you failed to backport the win32 build file to mod_substitute, so I'll go ahead and do that along with review the entire package today so it's ready as a

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:30:05 +0100 Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks folks for all the reviewing work done. From my perspective there is now nothing left between us and 2.2.7. Oops, there's an unexpected proxy compliance violation (fails to subtract Max-Forwards of 1 in Trace and

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 18:09:41 + Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oops, there's an unexpected proxy compliance violation (fails to subtract Max-Forwards of 1 in Trace and Options requests). Report: http://people.apache.org/~niq/coadvisor/2.2-dec9.html#violation Investigating now. The

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

Jess Holle wrote: Now that you bring up mod_proxy_ajp... Has the flexible packet size stuff been backported to 2.2.x yet? This stuff is important for some cases. mod_jk has it and I believe trunk does as well. It does, but don't know why it was limited to the 16384 bytes, and who

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

Thanks! -- Jess Holle Mladen Turk wrote: Jess Holle wrote: Now that you bring up mod_proxy_ajp... Has the flexible packet size stuff been backported to 2.2.x yet? This stuff is important for some cases. mod_jk has it and I believe trunk does as well. It does, but don't know why it was

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

Hi, question regarding mod_substitute docu: This is an experimental module and should be used with care. should this warning remain now that its moved out of experimental? Guenter.

Re: Apache memory usage

Hi, On Monday 03 December 2007, Stefan Fritsch wrote: But I found two locations where the creation of a new brigade could be avoided: - In buffer_output()/ap_old_write_filter(), it is possible to keep the brigade around and reuse it after the next flush. - In ap_http_chunk_filter(), a new

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

On 12/09/2007 10:02 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Hi, question regarding mod_substitute docu: This is an experimental module and should be used with care. should this warning remain now that its moved out of experimental? +1 to remove experimental from the docs. Regards Rüdiger

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

On 12/09/2007 08:30 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: Jess Holle wrote: Now that you bring up mod_proxy_ajp... Has the flexible packet size stuff been backported to 2.2.x yet? This stuff is important for some cases. mod_jk has it and I believe trunk does as well. It does, but don't know why

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 12/09/2007 10:02 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Hi, question regarding mod_substitute docu: This is an experimental module and should be used with care. should this warning remain now that its moved out of experimental? +1 to remove experimental from the docs. +1 from

Re: Apache memory usage

On 12/09/2007 10:03 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: Hi, On Monday 03 December 2007, Stefan Fritsch wrote: But I found two locations where the creation of a new brigade could be avoided: - In buffer_output()/ap_old_write_filter(), it is possible to keep the brigade around and reuse it after

Bug report for Apache httpd-1.3 [2007/12/09]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

Ruediger Pluem wrote: Are you talking about #define AJP_MAX_BUFFER_SZ 16384 in ajp.h? If yes, it was you in r467257 :-). ROTFL :-) I'm definitely getting older. Anyhow the max is 64K, so it should be updated accordingly to mod_jk and what Tomcat accepts. Cheers, Mladen

Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?

On 12/09/2007 08:04 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote: however this works not - does the $1 only work for AliasMatch and not with LocationMatch? LocationMatch /examples/(jsp|servlet|servlets) ProxyPass ajp://localhost:58009/examples/$1 /LocationMatch Have you tried to use

http-redirect url gets corrupted in request_rec - apache 2

Hi, i have an authentication module that i am trying to port from 64 bit linux to 32 bit solaris. The problem is that when the module redirects the request to the authentication page, the URL seems to be getting corrupted when it is passed betwen the module and apache core.