DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28222.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37213.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Costin Manolache wrote:
On 10/23/05, Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thinking more as an 'uses' - you create ByteBuffers ( maybe direct
buffers ), and
you set it in the ByteChunk. Extend is not the best choice - it
would be hard to work with direct ( or other ) buffers. I'm
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37215.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37215.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37218.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
be declared as stable that I'm missing?
I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having
alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably
because the clash of a
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37218.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37220.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37220.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37220.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37218.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37220.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37218.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37218.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
I plan on installing 1.2.15 on FreeBSD 5.3 and Solaris 7 today and
do some minimal testing.
Glenn
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 03:17:56PM +0200, Mladen Turk wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
be declared as stable that I'm missing?
I'll
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Sorry for late response, but I start testing and hope finish the test at
next two days
First testresults at Suse 9.3, Windows XP looks very well
Peter
Mladen Turk schrieb:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
be declared as stable that I'm
Mladen Turk wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
be declared as stable that I'm missing?
I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having
alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably
I have built mod_jk 1.2.15 for apache 2.0.55 on both Solaris 7 (Sun CC) and
FreeBSD 5.3. Build and normal use appear to be fine.
+1 to release as stable
Regards,
Glenn
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 05:56:55PM +0200, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
JK 1.2.15 has been tagged last week.
Please see the:
Questions since some interesting ideas have popped up with respect to the
next flavor of AJP... firstoff, who holds the AJP standard; is it the ASF?
Second, what is the status of AJP/1.5 and where is it discussed?
I would like to float some various questions to not only introduce some
'flush'
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@tomcat.apache.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 1:52 PM
Subject: Status/Authority of AJP/1.5
Questions since some interesting ideas have popped up with respect to the
next flavor of AJP... firstoff, who holds
I tought some time ago AJP was 'deprecated' - to be replaced with
plain HTTP and mod_proxy ?
Costin
On 10/24/05, Bill Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@tomcat.apache.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 1:52 PM
- Original Message -
From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List dev@tomcat.apache.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Status/Authority of AJP/1.5
I tought some time ago AJP was 'deprecated' - to be replaced with
plain HTTP and mod_proxy ?
I see. Sorry, I've been sleeping for quite a while, I'm slowly getting
up to speed with the latest developments.
Are you saying that mod_proxy_ajp is significantly faster than
mod_proxy ? That's interesting.
To answer your question - ajp10 and ajp11 were used in JServ,
developed in Apache.
Ajp12
28 matches
Mail list logo