Fwd: Document on developing modules for 2.4 and onwards
As per Igor's advice, I'm forwarding this message to the dev@ and modules-dev@ lists as well: Hello all httpd document lovers, As per our nifty little STATUS document, it came to my attention that we were missing an introductory segment on how to develop simple modules for httpd 2.4, so I took the liberty of drawing up a proposal for what we could put in place for this request. The draft is located at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/modguide.html and I would much appreciate it if you guys could give me some feedback on whether this will fit in as an, at least for the time being, appropriate document to describe how to develop modules for the server. I plan to expand on the subject, probably add another 10 pages or so, during the summer, as well as letting it into the 2.4 fold, provided I get positive feedback from this mailing list. So, please do read the document and tell me what you think :) Any suggestions, critique etc you might have will be warmly accepted. With regards, Daniel.
Re: Fwd: Document on developing modules for 2.4 and onwards
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:12:31AM +0200, Daniel Gruno wrote: As per Igor's advice, I'm forwarding this message to the dev@ and modules-dev@ lists as well: Hello all httpd document lovers, As per our nifty little STATUS document, it came to my attention that we were missing an introductory segment on how to develop simple modules for httpd 2.4, so I took the liberty of drawing up a proposal for what we could put in place for this request. The draft is located at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/modguide.html and I would much appreciate it if you guys could give me some feedback on whether this will fit in as an, at least for the time being, appropriate document to describe how to develop modules for the server. I plan to expand on the subject, probably add another 10 pages or so, during the summer, as well as letting it into the 2.4 fold, provided I get positive feedback from this mailing list. So, please do read the document and tell me what you think :) Any suggestions, critique etc you might have will be warmly accepted. With regards, Daniel. More comments: first, it might be a matter of style (or good habbits) but i think you should cast void pointers to the correct type in your code. So: example_config* base = BASE ; should be: example_config* base = (example_config*) BASE ; A real bug? strcpy(conf-path, strlen(add-path) ? add-path : base-path); Don't you mean strncpy here? BTW, 'char path[256];' is pretty dangerous, there are OS/Compiler constants that provide the operating sytem's max path length. Cheers, RalfD
Fwd: Document on developing modules for 2.4 and onwards
As per Igor's advice, I'm forwarding this message to the dev@ and modules-dev@ lists as well: Hello all httpd document lovers, As per our nifty little STATUS document, it came to my attention that we were missing an introductory segment on how to develop simple modules for httpd 2.4, so I took the liberty of drawing up a proposal for what we could put in place for this request. The draft is located at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/modguide.html and I would much appreciate it if you guys could give me some feedback on whether this will fit in as an, at least for the time being, appropriate document to describe how to develop modules for the server. I plan to expand on the subject, probably add another 10 pages or so, during the summer, as well as letting it into the 2.4 fold, provided I get positive feedback from this mailing list. So, please do read the document and tell me what you think :) Any suggestions, critique etc you might have will be warmly accepted. With regards, Daniel.
Re: svn commit: r1311569 - in /httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk: CHANGES-FCGID docs/manual/mod/mod_fcgid.xml modules/fcgid/fcgid_conf.c modules/fcgid/fcgid_conf.h modules/fcgid/fcgid_pm_win.c modules/fcgid/fcgid
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:08 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 4/10/2012 8:27 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:31 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:05 AM, wr...@apache.org wrote:
+ /* Cleanup the Job object if present */
+ conf = ap_get_module_config(((server_rec*)server)-module_config,
+ fcgid_module);
+
+ if (conf != NULL conf-hJobObjectForAutoCleanup != NULL) {
+ CloseHandle(conf-hJobObjectForAutoCleanup);
+ }
+
Isn't it more idiomatic to register a cleanup for the job object
rather than explicitly checking for whether or not it exists in
different code?
+1
I haven't touched that. After possibly wasting time hacking the error
reporting/handling for when the job object is created, I wonder if
this is even the right place to create the job object and potentially
register a cleanup. Why not in a post-config hook? Also, is this
really needed in parent AND child?
The windows logic needs a lot more thought in relation to the parent and
child, where this pool of fcgid workers is created, how they are released.
But as job objects, they will be gone as the parent dies, so I believe
the whole theory is fundamentally sound. Cosmetics like this do deserve
deeper consideration, but I think it's ready for release as is.
Agreed that it doesn't keep it from working and isn't going to hurt
anyone... I'm done with tweaking this feature.
Re: Document on developing modules for 2.4 and onwards
Hi Daniel, The draft is already a great document and very useful for Httpd application developers. And I think it could be more helpful if it provides some guidelines for updating modules from 2.2.x to 2.4.x, or some way to use the new 2.4 features. Regards, Bing -邮件原件- 发件人: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rum...@cord.dk] 发送时间: 2012年4月11日 17:13 收件人: modules-...@httpd.apache.org; dev@httpd.apache.org 主题: Fwd: Document on developing modules for 2.4 and onwards As per Igor's advice, I'm forwarding this message to the dev@ and modules-dev@ lists as well: Hello all httpd document lovers, As per our nifty little STATUS document, it came to my attention that we were missing an introductory segment on how to develop simple modules for httpd 2.4, so I took the liberty of drawing up a proposal for what we could put in place for this request. The draft is located at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/modguide.html and I would much appreciate it if you guys could give me some feedback on whether this will fit in as an, at least for the time being, appropriate document to describe how to develop modules for the server. I plan to expand on the subject, probably add another 10 pages or so, during the summer, as well as letting it into the 2.4 fold, provided I get positive feedback from this mailing list. So, please do read the document and tell me what you think :) Any suggestions, critique etc you might have will be warmly accepted. With regards, Daniel.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.2 as GA
I'm planning on letting the vote run for a few more days, just in case, and, if all is well, we can announce on Monday. Good news always should be announced early in the week :) On Apr 5, 2012, at 8:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.2 can be found at the usual place: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.2 GA. NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life easier for the tester. They will not be, and are not, part of the official release. [ ] +1: Good to go [ ] +0: meh [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why. Vote will last the normal 72 hrs.
Re: Document on developing modules for 2.4 and onwards
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Bing Swen bs...@pku.edu.cn wrote: Hi Daniel, The draft is already a great document and very useful for Httpd application developers. And I think it could be more helpful if it provides some guidelines for updating modules from 2.2.x to 2.4.x, or some way to use the new 2.4 features. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/developer/new_api_2_4.html Regards, Bing -邮件原件- 发件人: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rum...@cord.dk] 发送时间: 2012年4月11日 17:13 收件人: modules-...@httpd.apache.org; dev@httpd.apache.org 主题: Fwd: Document on developing modules for 2.4 and onwards As per Igor's advice, I'm forwarding this message to the dev@ and modules-dev@ lists as well: Hello all httpd document lovers, As per our nifty little STATUS document, it came to my attention that we were missing an introductory segment on how to develop simple modules for httpd 2.4, so I took the liberty of drawing up a proposal for what we could put in place for this request. The draft is located at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/modguide.html and I would much appreciate it if you guys could give me some feedback on whether this will fit in as an, at least for the time being, appropriate document to describe how to develop modules for the server. I plan to expand on the subject, probably add another 10 pages or so, during the summer, as well as letting it into the 2.4 fold, provided I get positive feedback from this mailing list. So, please do read the document and tell me what you think :) Any suggestions, critique etc you might have will be warmly accepted. With regards, Daniel. -- Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Fwd: Document on developing modules for 2.4 and onwards
On 11-04-2012 16:46, r...@tuxteam.de wrote: Nice work, and I bet it'll be helpful for new module authors. Just a small bug: in your example on configuration setting, in the function 'example_create_dir_conf(...)' your code returns 'dir' which isn't declared in function scope. Shouldn't this read 'return cfg;' ??? Cheers, Ralf Mattes Yes, of course it should - fixed, thanks! :) As per the strcpy, it's really not a concern, since the path isn't a file path per se, but instead gets to hold one of two values; Merged configuration or Newly created configuration at this point. But I should probably look at casting properly, yeah, so I'll go fix that next. With regards, Daniel.
testing --enable-mods-*=few
Hi folks, I'm currently trying to test a very minimal setup of httpd trunk, and I'm failing because few disables a number of modules our test suite takes for granted. Right now I'm stuck in t/modules/alias.t having a hard time deciding how to proceed since I don't know the test suite well enough: The problem is that ~8 or so tests in t/modules/alias.t require cgi, requiring that module for all tests seems wrong, as we'd skip all tests then. Is there a way to do explain to the plan that *some* tests require an additional module? i -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
[PATCH] mod_dbd multiple pools (pr#45456)
Hi folks, I've updated Marko Kevac's patch to allow for multiple pools in mod_dbd. I'd like to ask for reviews and opinions in particular this here seems a bit odd: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28585action=diff#modules/database/mod_dbd.c_sec20 It's in the nature of the patch that it breaks the API, and I've been wondering how we can handle that more gracefully. My first concern when starting out with the patchset was that I would break tests. Now my concern is that we don't have any. So another issue is: How do we test this module? Thanks, i -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: testing --enable-mods-*=few
Hi Igor, On 11.04.2012 19:48, Igor Galić wrote: Hi folks, I'm currently trying to test a very minimal setup of httpd trunk, and I'm failing because few disables a number of modules our test suite takes for granted. Right now I'm stuck in t/modules/alias.t having a hard time deciding how to proceed since I don't know the test suite well enough: The problem is that ~8 or so tests in t/modules/alias.t require cgi, requiring that module for all tests seems wrong, as we'd skip all tests then. Is there a way to do explain to the plan that *some* tests require an additional module? Don't know. I usually test with reallyall, but most should work as well. Regards, Rainer
Re: testing --enable-mods-*=few
all tests seems wrong, as we'd skip all tests then. Is there a way to do explain to the plan that *some* tests require an additional module? Don't know. I usually test with reallyall, but most should work as well. And few shouldn't? If that's a feature, perhaps we should put it in the README Regards, Rainer i -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Fix for CVE-2011-4317 broke RewriteRule in forward proxy?
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: On 24.03.2012 16:39, Jeff Trawick wrote: On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: On 24.03.2012 07:02, Kaspar Brand wrote: On 23.03.2012 18:11, Rainer Jung wrote: It should be RewriteRule not RewriteMap in my previous mail. I simplified the config to a single RewriteRule but forgot to adjst subject and intro of my mail. The problem remains the same. Doesn't that ring a bell - namely the one of PR 52774? Thanks Kaspar, yes that's the same issue. Sorry for not having remembered or searched that one. I expect the same problem for trunk, but will check it. I need to review the argumentation for the final variant of the CVE-2011-4317 fix but IMHO the current behavior is broken. The primary reasoning was that it lets the long-standing fallback logic in core fail the request if necessary, letting modules decide what they could handle. Subsequently it was determined that the error path in the initial 3368 fix didn't work for HTTP 0.9 in some levels of code (2.0 IIRC) and just managed to work in 2.2. But yes, this forward proxy situation needs to be supported. The check added to mod_rewrite to skip things it didn't know how to handle was not correct. After a cursory skim of the code, it seems that RewriteRule could conceivably be used on anything that gets in r-uri or r-filename, but that generality, hopefully unintentional, was part of the original problem. Would it help to apply the current checks only for [P] flags? Or are there other known exposures for the proxy problem? I don't remember any, but maybe those were only the easiest once to understand. Currently we DECLINE in hook_uri2file() before we actually go through the rules. We could DECLINE only if we detect a [P] rule. Another question would then be, if the same check would again be necessary when running through the rules the second time in the fixup hook. Adding Petr, who posted a patch to bug 52774... I've stared at the patch a bit (no mysteries) as well as at Rainer's suggestions above from a couple of weeks ago (whoops!) but haven't settled on an opinion yet.
IfModule doesn't work in certain case
I wonder if you would consider this a bug. Here is the situation. I had a config file in conf.d which loaded some modules. Alphabetically, it came after the loading of the vhost files. The IfModule blocks would not work. In this same order, if I don't use IfModule, the directives still work fine. I don't know if this is expected behavior, but I would think either the IfModule should work or if the reason the IfModule doesn't work is because the modules weren't loaded yet, I should get an error and the directives shouldn't work when I don't use the IfModule. Makes sense? -William Leonard
