Hi all,
I'm just trying to write my first Module (actually a filter) for Apache and
made an observation I can't explain.
I have now made an empty skeleton that has some dummy configuration and
a callback function for my filter that I registered as follows:
static void register_hooks(apr_pool_t
Hello all,
We've written a simple module that reads a POST request and sends it
through a socket to our server. It's been developed in Debian and works
fine in three different machines.
The problem is our client demanded us to deploy on Suse 10.2, and I've
set up the whole thing, but, when
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:54:27 -0300
Deodoro Filho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone help me ?
Looks like the SuSE is compiled with debug, and is unhappy about
you passing 0 for readbytes.
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
On 10/09/2007 01:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: niq
Date: Mon Oct 8 16:47:35 2007
New Revision: 583002
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=583002view=rev
Log:
mod_proxy_http: Don't unescape/escape forward proxied URLs. Just check them.
PR 42592
also add fix to PR42572 to
On 10/9/07, Renu Tiwari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are facing an issue in dynamically loading the thirdparty module to
Apache2.0.61 server. Error shown in error_logs of Apache server is
*Error from DSOLoadLibrary - Not enough space.*
That's not an Apache message, FWIW. I can't find a
I believe the line making the connection always 'AP_CONN_CLOSE' on
force-response-1.0 is a erroneous leftover. The 1.0 should keep the connection
alive if the browser will ask it to do so.
httpd-trunk/modules/http$ grep -n -C 3 force-response-1.0 http_filters.c
...
700:/* kludge around
On Oct 9, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/09/2007 01:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: niq
Date: Mon Oct 8 16:47:35 2007
New Revision: 583002
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=583002view=rev
Log:
mod_proxy_http: Don't unescape/escape forward proxied URLs. Just
Hi
Thanks for the reply.
Just wanted to confirm one thing.
We have build the apache 2.0.61 source on AIX 5.2(64 bit) and than placed the
resultant Apache folder structure to AIX5.3(64 bit) m/c.
Can this cause some kind of discrepencies?
Thanx
From: Jeff
On 10/9/07, Renu Tiwari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Thanks for the reply.
Just wanted to confirm one thing.
We have build the apache 2.0.61 source on AIX 5.2(64 bit) and than placed
the resultant Apache folder structure to AIX5.3(64 bit) m/c.
Can this cause some kind of discrepencies?
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:03:59 -0400
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would almost make sense to have this as an API function... anyone have
issues if I make the required adjustments for that to happen?
What's the scope of your proposed API function?
The current http_proxy_canonenc,
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:54:21 +0400
Aleksey Midenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the line making the connection always 'AP_CONN_CLOSE' on
force-response-1.0 is a erroneous leftover. The 1.0 should keep the
connection alive if the browser will ask it to do so.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 9, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
+const char *allowed = ~$-_.+!*'(),;:@=/; /* allowed+reserved
from
+ ap_proxy_canonenc */
Otherwise looks good.
Would almost make sense to have this as an API
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 18:13:00 Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:54:21 +0400
Aleksey Midenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the line making the connection always 'AP_CONN_CLOSE' on
force-response-1.0 is a erroneous leftover. The 1.0 should keep the
connection alive if the
On Oct 9, 2007, at 10:58 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 9, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
+const char *allowed = ~$-_.+!*'(),;:@=/; /* allowed
+reserved
from
+
ap_proxy_canonenc */
Otherwise
On Oct 9, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 18:13:00 Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:54:21 +0400
Aleksey Midenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the line making the connection always 'AP_CONN_CLOSE' on
force-response-1.0 is a erroneous leftover.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I might be confused here, but if the response is forced 1.0,
then there are no keepalives in which case we want to *force*
keepalives off.
Actually two different settings, no? 1.0 supported explicit keepalives.
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:04:22 +0400
Aleksey Midenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I have checked all 6 variants.
Nice - thanks.
In case 'Connection:' header is
in the request, the response is sent exactly how this header asks
(for both 1.0 and 1.1 protocols). In case of absence of
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I might be confused here, but if the response is forced 1.0,
then there are no keepalives in which case we want to *force*
keepalives off.
Actually two different settings, no? 1.0
On 10/8/07 1:44 PM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the millionth time, if that is a problem then separate the proxy
module from the gateway (reverse proxy) module. They do not belong
together.
+1. This would sway me more to go back to the stock modules. The
reverse proxy
On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:49 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I might be confused here, but if the response is forced 1.0,
then there are no keepalives in which case we want to *force*
keepalives
On 10/9/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All I'm saying is that, iirc, the intent of force-response-1.0 is
to force a 1.0 response and disable keepalives... it was designed
to work around buggy browsers that had problems with 1.1 features,
including wonky 1.0-type keepalives.
No,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Permit third numerical form of IPv6 addresses, e.g. ::n.n.n.n
although this form will almost certainly fail proxyport equality tests.
With this patch, we now implement RFC2428, which was my only hesitation
to at least throwing out an alpha release for users to
On Oct 9, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
On 10/9/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All I'm saying is that, iirc, the intent of force-response-1.0 is
to force a 1.0 response and disable keepalives... it was designed
to work around buggy browsers that had problems with 1.1
Hi Nick,
I guess you're right, beats me why the distribution rpm was compiled
with AP_DEBUG.
Thank you very much,
Deodoro Filho
Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:54:27 -0300
Deodoro Filho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone help me ?
Looks like the SuSE is compiled with debug, and
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=78967
That's a 1997 date, btw :)
Does anyone recall if there was any fallout from the change to allow
ap_set_output_filter_by_type() to operate on proxy requests?
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31226
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/server/core.c?rev=327793r1=307031r2=327793
I'd
Eric Covener wrote:
I'd like to backport to 2.0.x but it seems like there was a little bit
of caution in the 2.2.x/trunk commits.
Propose it in STATUS and let's see where that goes.
Akins, Brian wrote:
For the millionth time, if that is a problem then separate the proxy
module from the gateway (reverse proxy) module. They do not belong
together.
+1. This would sway me more to go back to the stock modules. The
reverse proxy could be much more aggressive with
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:17:18 +0200
Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I recall there is very little difference between the code for
forward proxy and the code for reverse proxy, the key differences
being to send a Proxy-Auth instead of Auth where appropriate, and
other minor things.
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:12, Jim Jagielski wrote:
All I'm saying is that, iirc, the intent of force-response-1.0 is
to force a 1.0 response and disable keepalives... it was designed
to work around buggy browsers that had problems with 1.1 features,
including wonky 1.0-type keepalives.
30 matches
Mail list logo
