Hi all,
I'm not sure we are using a hack from the 2.2, the 2.2 feature is very helpful
for us and we really need to keep it that way.
This is an example of usage :
We are using either mod_rewrite and our own module to makes URI rewriting in
order to make different treatments on the request
On 2 Jan 2013, at 09:19, sebastien.allam...@orange.com
sebastien.allam...@orange.com wrote:
Hi all,
I’m not sure we are using a hack from the 2.2, the 2.2 feature is very
helpful for us and we really need to keep it that way.
If you are using mod_rewrite then you're using a hack. End
Hi,
In fact our problem is not in mod_rewrite usage but in the fact that proxypass
don't work anymore if we use it in Location section.
We have our own module that dynamically modify the incoming request that we
will forward to different backend depending on our own conditions.
To do that we
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:51 AM, sebastien.allam...@orange.com wrote:
Hi,
In fact our problem is not in mod_rewrite usage but in the fact that
proxypass don't work anymore if we use it in Location section.
We have our own module that dynamically modify the incoming request that we
will
For *real* improvement, wouldn't storing in socache be
the optimal method?
On Jan 1, 2013, at 3:16 PM, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sf
Date: Tue Jan 1 20:16:30 2013
New Revision: 1427548
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1427548view=rev
Log:
Add some caching for password hash
On 02.01.2013 08:28, Eric Covener wrote:
If mod_rewrite or your own custom module just changes the URI in place
after the configuration has been determined, it doesn't change the
per-request configuration.
mod_proxy in 2.2 doesn't properly use per-request configuration, and
crawls through every
Eric Covener wrote:
When defining a balancer, mod_lbmethod_byrequests is always looked up
explicitly and used as the initial LB method.
I am curious how others feel about this:
[ ] document that mod_lbmethod_byrequests needs to be loaded and
improve the error
[ ] make it work if
I am working the balancer persist and balancer inheritance
backport patches and will be adding to 2.4's STATUS file,
at which point I'll then will be pushing for a TR ;)
Are global balancer-definitions supposed to be usable by rewriterules inside
vhosts?Thanks! Yours,
I would have thought so, is it a 2.2/2.4 difference for you?
On Wednesday 02 January 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
For *real* improvement, wouldn't storing in socache be
the optimal method?
Yes. I fear there may be some knee-jerk reaction like oh my god, they
are keeping all the passwords in plain-text. But if it would be
limited to the shmcb socache
On 02.01.2013 15:27, Eric Covener wrote:
Are global balancer-definitions supposed to be usable by rewriterules inside
vhosts?Thanks! Yours,
I would have thought so, is it a 2.2/2.4 difference for you?
I would not know -- because one of our RewriteMaps is using a database (Sybase,
in fact), we
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
For *real* improvement, wouldn't storing in socache be
the optimal method?
Yes. I fear there may be some knee-jerk reaction like oh my god, they
are keeping all the
On Wednesday 02 January 2013, Eric Covener wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de
wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
For *real* improvement, wouldn't storing in socache be
the optimal method?
Yes. I fear there may be some
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I am working the balancer persist and balancer inheritance
backport patches and will be adding to 2.4's STATUS file,
at which point I'll then will be pushing for a TR ;)
Do you know if there is any activity to backport the three
I was preparing the IP clearance forms and noticed our original vote
thread was more of a discussion. I wanted to record a formal vote here
so I can link to it.
Pending IP clearance...
[+1] accept mod_macro as a standard module and responsibility for its
maintenance
[ +/- 0] don't care won't
On 01/03/2013 03:06 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
I was preparing the IP clearance forms and noticed our original vote
thread was more of a discussion. I wanted to record a formal vote here
so I can link to it.
Pending IP clearance...
[+1] accept mod_macro as a standard module and
Am 03.01.2013 03:06, schrieb Eric Covener:
I was preparing the IP clearance forms and noticed our original vote
thread was more of a discussion. I wanted to record a formal vote here
so I can link to it.
Pending IP clearance...
[+1] accept mod_macro as a standard module and responsibility for
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Pending IP clearance...
[+1] accept mod_macro as a standard module and responsibility for its
maintenance
On 03.01.2013 03:06, Eric Covener wrote:
I was preparing the IP clearance forms and noticed our original vote
thread was more of a discussion. I wanted to record a formal vote here
so I can link to it.
Pending IP clearance...
[+1] accept mod_macro as a standard module and responsibility
+1
Roy
On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Pending IP clearance...
[+1] accept mod_macro as a standard module and responsibility for its
maintenance
[ +/- 0] don't care won't help
[ -1] don't accept mod_macro as a standard module
+1
S.
--
scte...@apache.org
On 03/01/2013 04:06, Eric Covener wrote:
I was preparing the IP clearance forms and noticed our original vote
thread was more of a discussion. I wanted to record a formal vote here
so I can link to it.
Pending IP clearance...
[+1] accept mod_macro as a standard module and responsibility for
22 matches
Mail list logo
