https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54626
It looks like this was fixed in trunk a couple of years ago.
Is there a reason why it wasn't proposed for a backport to 2.4 or to 2.2?
I don't mind managing the patch myself - I'm trying to get someone to
stage a system for me to test it,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Stefan Eissing
stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de wrote:
Well, let's have a look at the core changes and discuss specifics.
There are only additions. Hooks and functions. And fields added to
First question, will many of us be present and available during the day
Wednesday ahead of the ApacheCon Core content for a hackathon and BoF, or
would it be better for these things to happen on Thursday during/in the
evening of Core?
Bill
Ideally, getting mod_h2 into users hands will be MUCH easier by focusing
on finishing up the 2.4 backporting... This out of the blue notice
to alpha 2.5 seems to me some method to stall or circumvent action in that
direction by changing the goalposts...
-0.9
On Aug 26, 2015, at 11:21 AM,
The faster early adopters can get us bug feedback, the faster the stable and
tested module can be backported to 2.4 without experimental warnings, IMO.
Nobody is going to do that. No one is going to run 2.5 alpha to
test h2 and http/2 when people were ALREADY using and testing
h2|http/2
Well, let's have a look at the core changes and discuss specifics.
There are only additions. Hooks and functions. And fields added to core_config.
Unless some module is messing directly with that, I can see no need for
recompilations.
But I might be wrong. Let's review that patch and see.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:37 AM, ic...@apache.org wrote:
Author: icing
Date: Wed Aug 26 13:37:18 2015
New Revision: 1697931
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1697931
+ *) core/mod_ssl: add Protocols/ProtocolsHonorOrder directives and new
+ protocols hooks to control Upgrade: and ALPN
On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Stefan Eissing stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de
wrote:
Well, let's have a look at the core changes and discuss specifics.
There are only additions. Hooks and functions. And fields added to
core_config. Unless some module is messing directly with that, I can
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
?? I can't quite grok what you mean:
I'm dubious that we are going to be able to meet the
criteria that modules built for httpd 2.4.x will continue to
function correctly without recompilation under
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 11:43 AM William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
First question, will many of us be present and available during the day
Wednesday ahead of the ApacheCon Core content for a hackathon and BoF, or
would it be better for these things to happen on Thursday during/in the
?? I can't quite grok what you mean:
I'm dubious that we are going to be able to meet the
criteria that modules built for httpd 2.4.x will continue to
function correctly without recompilation under 2.4+refactoring
could you explain??
It seems to me that considering that
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Ideally, getting mod_h2 into users hands will be MUCH easier by focusing
on finishing up the 2.4 backporting... This out of the blue notice
to alpha 2.5 seems to me some method to stall or circumvent action in
that
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:20 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Stefan Eissing
stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de wrote:
I just submitted my first backport STATUS update. Hope I did everything
ok, otherwise please let me know.
For backporting
Yes, that's right - the toolkit does itself decide which protocol is used.
However, it decides based on the order of the protocols we pass to it; that
is, it will find the first protocol in the list supported by the client and
negotiate it. We will order the list ourselves according to Protocols
We don't want C90 specifics, certainly not in 2.4... Strict ANSI.
On Aug 26, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Stefan Eissing stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de
wrote:
Hi Norm,
I think these type of assignments are part of the C90 standard. I am not sure
we want to support a compiler that cannot cope with
On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:24 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Ideally, getting mod_h2 into users hands will be MUCH easier by focusing
on finishing up the 2.4 backporting... This out of the blue notice
to
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote:
On 8/25/2015 10:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Again, if the slotmem exists and is persisted, the assumption
is that THAT is what the admin wants, and when Apache restarts,
THAT is the running config they desire. If there
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 5:29 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
First question, will many of us be present and available during the day
Wednesday ahead of the ApacheCon Core content for a hackathon and BoF, or
would it be better for these things to happen on Thursday during/in the
G/Morning I think,
As Bill correctly guesses in a following mail, 'my' OS is NetWare and
it's the standard compiler GK has been using for years to build Apache
releases.
And that (Metrowerks CW) (AFAIK) is a C89 legend.
As I noted in my mail, I would hardly expect to hold back tomorrows
Just a quick observation before backport of mod_h2 is proposed...
Moving the macro APACHE_CHECK_NGHTTP2 out of acinclude.m4 into
modules/http2/config.m4 lets me build (after a ./buildconf) after simply
checking out modules/http2/ from trunk.
In terms of ease-of-integration, do we see other
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:06 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
In terms of ease-of-integration, do we see other modules we expect to
utilize libnghttp2, e.g. mod_proxy_http? If so, this probably isn't the
right solution, but it makes an interesting and quick stop-gap.
I would
I will apply the proposed change tomorrow. keep the old horse happy.
//stefan
Am 26.08.2015 um 23:18 schrieb NormW no...@gknw.net:
G/Morning I think,
As Bill correctly guesses in a following mail, 'my' OS is NetWare and it's
the standard compiler GK has been using for years to build
Whinnnie!
(eq Equine 'Thanks')
On 27/08/2015 7:31 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
I will apply the proposed change tomorrow. keep the old horse happy.
//stefan
Am 26.08.2015 um 23:18 schrieb NormW no...@gknw.net:
G/Morning I think,
As Bill correctly guesses in a following mail, 'my' OS is NetWare
On 8/26/2015 6:44 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
I just submitted my first backport STATUS update. Hope I did everything ok,
otherwise please let me know.
For backporting mod_h2 to 2.4.x, I decided to make it in two parts: one is the
patch to core/mod_ssl that introduces Protocols. That is now in
Should this exception have a protocol version guard for HTTP/2.0 requests,
and leave the response as HTTP_BAD_REQUEST for HTTP/1.1 and earlier?
@@ -203,6 +204,9 @@
ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_ERR, 0, r-server,
APLOGNO(02032)
Hostname %s provided
woot!!
On Aug 26, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Stefan Eissing stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de
wrote:
I just submitted my first backport STATUS update. Hope I did everything ok,
otherwise please let me know.
For backporting mod_h2 to 2.4.x, I decided to make it in two parts: one is
the patch to
I just submitted my first backport STATUS update. Hope I did everything ok,
otherwise please let me know.
For backporting mod_h2 to 2.4.x, I decided to make it in two parts: one is the
patch to core/mod_ssl that introduces Protocols. That is now in STATUS.
Next would be a patch for
I was experimenting with the new support for declaring protocols for e.g.
ALPN, but with an SSL toolkit other than openssl. This one wants us to pass
the entire list of all the protocols the server supports in advance; later,
we can request the one protocol that the toolkit negotiated.
It looks
Hmm, this was the kind of behaviour of NPN, maybe that influenced the API of
that toolkit?
I imagine that the toolkit will decide itself then what protocol is negotiated.
That would mean that the directive ProtocolsHonorOrder has no longer an effect.
Am I right?
I do not think that is what we
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Stefan Eissing
stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de wrote:
I just submitted my first backport STATUS update. Hope I did everything
ok, otherwise please let me know.
For backporting mod_h2 to 2.4.x, I decided to make it in two parts: one is
the patch to core/mod_ssl
I'm planning to tag trunk on 11 Sept to get 2.5.0 and mod_h2 into users
hands ASAP and collect feedback on that module ahead of any merges back
into the stable 2.4.x branch.
Concerns/Questions/Roadblocks/Showstoppers?
On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:55 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Stefan Eissing stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de
wrote:
Well, let's have a look at the core changes and discuss
On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:06 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
In terms of ease-of-integration, do we see other modules we expect to
utilize libnghttp2, e.g. mod_proxy_http? If so, this probably isn't the
Hi Norm,
I think these type of assignments are part of the C90 standard. I am not sure
we want to support a compiler that cannot cope with that, but I may be to green
to know that. What platform is this on exactly?
//Stefan
Am 26.08.2015 um 00:53 schrieb NormW no...@gknw.net:
G/Morning,
From my side it's a go ahead. We will obviously find bugs in such a new
module impacting potentially all requests, but the tests we have are stable.
So, I think, getting it into more peoples hands is the way forward.
Btw. if you review the core_protocols.patch and find anything preventing a
Netware, I'd presume.
Going forwards on trunk (not breaking 2.4.x) I agree with Norm that the
explicit list is easier for developers to first approach than the list
schema.
The feature I'd really like to see us adopt on trunk is incomplete
structures, which would allow us to break code that
On 2015-08-26 17:21, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
I'm planning to tag trunk on 11 Sept to get 2.5.0 and mod_h2 into users
hands ASAP and collect feedback on that module ahead of any merges back
into the stable 2.4.x branch.
Concerns/Questions/Roadblocks/Showstoppers?
In case there will be a
37 matches
Mail list logo
