Hi Mark,
Thanks for your observations.
On May 4, 2004, at 7:18 PM, mark wrote:
Your attach logic should work, however it raises privilege issues
because the children run as a different user (nobody or www, etc) the
than the process running the create (root). I had problems when I was
doing
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I do wish people would read the specification to refresh their memory
before summarizing. RFC 2616 doesn't say anything about cookies -- it
doesn't have to because there are already several mechanisms for marking
a request or response as varying. In this case
Vary:
On Mon, 3 May 2004, Neil Gunton wrote:
Well, that truly sucks. If you pass options around in params then
whenever someone follows a link posted by someone else, they will
inherit that person's options. The only alternative might be to make
pages 'No-Cache' and then set the
I put the new version at http://apache.org/~sctemme/mod_example_ipc.c
to save on e-mail bandwidth.
if you're interested in this kind of thing, I've wrapped up mod_example_ipc
in an Apache-Test tarball:
http://perl.apache.org/~geoff/mod_example-ipc.tar.gz
for no particular reason except
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 09:36:14PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
I have just installed the latest published version of httpd (v2.0.49),
and the problem where httpd refuses to start unless the file
ssl_gcache_data is manually deleted beforehand is still there.
I recall some recent discussion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this fellow were to simply 'stuff' his Cookie into the
'extra text' part of the User-Agent: string and send
out a Vary: User-Agent along with the response
then it would actually work the way he expects it too.
Thanks to Roy and Kevin for your insight. Sorry if this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jorton 2004/05/05 09:29:59
Index: STATUS
*) Readd suexec setuid and user check (now APR supports it)
os/unix/unixd.c: r1.69
+1: nd, trawick
+ +1: jorton, if surrounded with #ifdef APR_USETID to retain
+
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 03:05:45PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jorton 2004/05/05 09:29:59
Index: STATUS
*) Readd suexec setuid and user check (now APR supports it)
os/unix/unixd.c: r1.69
+1: nd, trawick
+ +1: jorton, if
Hi Neil...
This is Kevin Kiley...
Personally, I don't think this discussion is all that OT for
Apache but others might disagree.
"Vary:" is still a broken mess out there and if 'getting it right'
is still anyone's goal then these are the kinds of discussions
that need to take place SOMEWHERE.
(see note on hup cleanup below)
On May 5, 2004, at 2:51 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your observations.
On May 4, 2004, at 7:18 PM, mark wrote:
2)
Dettach is never needed. However, depending on desired results, it is
usually desireable to perform a destroy when a HUP signal is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bottom line:
In order to do your 'Cookie' scheme and have it work with
all major browsers you might have to give up on the idea
that the responses can EVER be 'cached' locally by
a browser... but now you also lose the ability to have
it cached by ANYONE.
There
Neil wrote...
Thanks again Kevin for the insight and interesting links. It seems to me
that there are basically three components here: My server, intermediate
caching proxies, and the end-user browser. From my understanding of the
discussion so far, each of these can be covered as follows:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21719
Since my submitted bug hasn't been resolved in the 9 months since I
first reported it, I figure it's about time I try and resolve this
problem myself since I do have the source code. I've done a partial
debug on the failure but can't get
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MOST Proxy Cache Servers ( including ones that SAY they are
HTTP/1.1 compliant ) do NOT handle Vary: and they will simple
treat ANY response they get with a Vary: header of any kind
exactly the way MSIE seems to. They will treat it as if it was
Vary: * ( Vary: STAR )
Steve Waltner wrote:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21719
Since my submitted bug hasn't been resolved in the 9 months since I
first reported it, I figure it's about time I try and resolve this
problem myself since I do have the source code. I've done a partial
debug on the
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/04/19 18:53:57 $]
Release:
1.3.31-dev: In development. Plan to TR week of April 19.
1.3.30: Tagged April 9, 2004. Not released.
1.3.29: Tagged October 24, 2003. Announced Oct 29,
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/05/05 16:29:58 $]
Release:
2.0.50 : in development
2.0.49 : released March 19, 2004 as GA.
2.0.48 : released October 29, 2003 as GA.
2.0.47 : released July 09, 2003 as GA.
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/04/27 22:09:17 $]
Release [NOTE that only Alpha/Beta releases occur in 2.1 development]:
2.1.0 : in development
Please consult the following STATUS files for information
on related
hi all
a while ago Ken Coar brought up that Apache-Test doesn't print the final
test count when there are errors. that is, we currently do this:
# Failed test 20 in t/apache/contentlength.t at line 54 fail #10
FAILED tests 2, 6, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20
Failed 7/20 tests, 65.00% okay
Failed
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all
a while ago Ken Coar brought up that Apache-Test doesn't print the final
test count when there are errors. that is, we currently do this:
# Failed test 20 in t/apache/contentlength.t at line 54 fail #10
FAILED tests 2, 6, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20
Failed 7/20 tests,
Not sure what you are talking about above, the only difference between
the two is in line:
blarg, cut and paste error.
without my patch, it looks like this (note it's 1.3)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] perl-framework]$ t/TEST t/apache/contentlength.t -v
/apache/1.3/dso/perl-5.8.4/bin/httpd -d
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Not sure what you are talking about above, the only difference between
the two is in line:
blarg, cut and paste error.
without my patch, it looks like this (note it's 1.3)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] perl-framework]$ t/TEST t/apache/contentlength.t -v
Got it. Why not just do this:
return unless $_[0] =~ /^Failed/i; #dont catch Test::ok failures
+print $_[0];
truthfully, I spent far too long trying to figure out why the die() wasn't
cascading. once I got it I just patched it and let the patch fly without
too much
23 matches
Mail list logo
