On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:04 PM, cove...@apache.org wrote:
Author: covener
Date: Fri Nov 14 12:04:46 2014
New Revision: 1639614
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1639614
Log:
don't call notify_suspend() in a worker thread after
start_lingering_close_common may have put the socket back
into the
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:04 PM, cove...@apache.org wrote:
Author: covener
Date: Fri Nov 14 12:04:46 2014
New Revision: 1639614
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1639614
Log:
don't call notify_suspend() in a worker thread after
start_lingering_close_common may have put the socket back
into the
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com
wrote:
Index: server/mpm/event/event.c
===
--- server/mpm/event/event.c(revision 1642684)
+++ server/mpm/event/event.c(working copy)
@@ -859,16 +859,16 @@ static int start_lingering_close_common(event_conn
cs-pub.state
The idea is that being a project with a long, long history,
httpd has the unfortunate reputation of being old, slow,
and basically, not the new hotness. So even though the
project has been around, 2.4 is vastly different, and
really should be seen and considered as a whole new
web server.
On Nov
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Also, the old code notified unconditionally (too late, but always),
whereas now it will not should ap_start_lingering_close() fail in
start_lingering_close_blocking().
Shouldn't we :
Index: server/mpm/event/event.c
I've updated the gdoc as proxying and load balancing
On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:15 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote:
On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
* deploying Python web apps under uWSGI behind mod_proxy_fcgi/scgi
(some material
here:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/14/2014 01:21 PM, Martynas Bendorius wrote:
Hello,
Is there any special reason why mod_systemd and mod_journald (available
in trunk) are not
Hi,
it seems that anytime I try to merge something from trunk into my
working 2.4.x, it produces a mergeinfo for
docs/manual/rewrite/advanced.xml.
What's mergeinfo policy in httpd? Is that expected?
Regards,
Yann.
On 12/01/2014 08:15 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
A side note on SSL/security: I had the idea a few years back that there
is probably enough content to do a here is 5 minutes about how to
configure SSL in httpd and then 50 minutes of other important security
topics (What Ciphers should I enable?
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
it seems that anytime I try to merge something from trunk into my
working 2.4.x, it produces a mergeinfo for
docs/manual/rewrite/advanced.xml.
What's mergeinfo policy in httpd? Is that expected?
I am probably
On 12/02/2014 09:56 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
it seems that anytime I try to merge something from trunk into my
working 2.4.x, it produces a mergeinfo for
docs/manual/rewrite/advanced.xml.
What's mergeinfo policy in
Hi,
yes, it's been a while now, sorry for that...
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:10 PM, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Mon Nov 25 21:10:05 2013
New Revision: 1545408
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1545408
Log:
naming suggestion re: trawick
Modified:
- Original Message - Subject: Re: ApacheCon Austin, httpd track
From: Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com
Date: 12/2/14 8:29 am
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
On 12/01/2014 08:15 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
A side note on SSL/security: I had the idea a few years back that there
is
On 11/27/2014 02:46 PM, jkal...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jkaluza
Date: Thu Nov 27 13:46:11 2014
New Revision: 1642154
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1642154
Log:
* ap_exr: Add replace(string, from, to) function.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/expr.xml
On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
* deploying Python web apps under uWSGI behind mod_proxy_fcgi/scgi
(some material
here: http://emptyhammock.com/projects/info/pyweb/index.html)
On 1 Dec 2014, at 19:15, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote:
Similarly, I'm always up for giving
Hi,
should the same logic be applied in:
- ap_increment_counts (at line 367) ? (code looks like in
ap_time_process_request where the 0 test is done)
CJ
Le 02/12/2014 13:42, j...@apache.org a écrit :
Author: jim
Date: Tue Dec 2 12:42:39 2014
New Revision: 1642851
URL:
17 matches
Mail list logo