+ Before:
Files=218, Tests=2512, 1032 wallclock secs (594.94 cusr + 431.33 csys
= 1026.27 CPU)
+ After:
Files=218, Tests=2512, 246 wallclock secs (196.69 cusr + 33.55 csys =
230.24 CPU)
gozer++, +1
whee!
gozer++
--Geoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gozer 2004/09/16 14:36:13
Modified:perl-framework/Apache-Test Changes
perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache TestConfig.pm
Log:
Added an apxs query cache for improved test performance
It doesn't seem to make any difference for me. I'm not sure
On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 07:57 +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
I can't believe I am not in this list...
You made the proposal, but didn't say '+1', so at best, it was an
implied vote. :)
Hi,
i want to use an htmlParser within my apache module.
Is there any well-known html parser to do this..?
What i want to do is not only to parse the html files but to
change(add-remove) some attributes and elements.
Could anybody please help me?
Thanks in advance!
\Manos Moschous
Greetings All,
Just looking at a CVS build of 2.1, and on accessing the BalancerManager
page, the FailoverAttempts (on a NetWare platform) show as -2119156632.
If I edit the Balancer settings, the same value is displayed in the form,
and clicking 'Submit' reports 'Done' (accepted?), whereas it is
NormW wrote:
Greetings All,
Just looking at a CVS build of 2.1, and on accessing the BalancerManager
page, the FailoverAttempts (on a NetWare platform) show as -2119156632.
Strange... did you rebuild mod_proxy too?
Regards,
MT.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Good evening, and maybe an early one for me.
Just did a clean build with all the latest updates and _now_ it shows
zero... which is a lot better no idea where/why the previous number.
Apologies for the false alarm will call it quits for today so no more
interruptions.
Norm
- Original
Paul Querna wrote:
The Original Proposal was in March of this year:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10791831443r=2w=2
+1 Votes:
Tom May
Justin Erenkrantz
Andr Malo
Erik Abele
Jim Jagielski
Bill Stoddard
Joe Orton
+1 here, too.
--Geoff
I'm noticing a number of serious issues with util_ldap in Apache 2.0.51
on Windows:
If you use what used to be safe "I don't trust the cache" config
parameters as follows, you get an immediate crash (due to a null mutex).
LDAPCacheEntries 0
LDAPOpCacheEntries 0
LDAPSharedCacheSize 0
one possibility is to apply the security patches you need to 2.0.50
see http://apache.towardex.com/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.0.50/
the descriptions of the vulnerabilities at http://httpd.apache.org/
indicate which components are affected; note that CAN-2004-0786
applies to all configurations; I
Should the cleanup field be removed from the object structure in
mod_cache.h? [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/17/04 9:03 AM
stoddard 2004/09/17 08:03:08 Modified: modules/experimental Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH mod_mem_cache.c Log: eliminate cleanup bit in favor of managing the object exclusively with the
Jean-Jacques Clar wrote:
Should the cleanup field be removed from the object structure in
mod_cache.h?
Probably so if it's not used by mod_disk_cache.
Bill
Working on a wild hunch, I backed util_ldap source down to right before
the global mutex stuff went in -- as that should not be necessary with a
single child process anyway, right?
This fixed the crash on shutdown -- but that's all.
I'm going to try the 2.0.50 util_ldap sources with everything
One small correction:
When I remove the global mutex stuff I no longer have the case where
both the worker and parent processes crash, so that's another
improvement on Windows. Unfortunately, I still have the case where
Apache hangs, however.
--
Jess Holle
Jess Holle wrote:
Working on a wild
At 08:54 AM 9/17/2004, Jess Holle wrote:
... given the security and non-LDAP fixes in 2.0.51, I am now left pondering whether
I should move try backing the LDAP modules back to 2.0.50 while keeping all other
2.0.51 code. Ideas?
All in all, LDAP does not appear to be a happy camper on 2.0.51 on
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 08:54 AM 9/17/2004, Jess Holle wrote:
... given the security and non-LDAP fixes in 2.0.51, I am now left pondering whether I should move try backing the LDAP modules back to 2.0.50 while keeping all other 2.0.51 code. Ideas?
All in
+1 Subversion still lacks a few features in commit notices, and
I don't see the equivalent of viewcvs diff (must be hidden
somewhere), but the developer interaction is much better.
What are we going to use for trunk names? httpd-1.3 and httpd-2?
I wonder how hard it would be to make
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:49:22 +0100, Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:48:11PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Here's a patch that does something like I mentioned above, though it
bails out a bit sooner (9 or so seconds). The timing of the
interesting actions in this
18 matches
Mail list logo
