> On 29 Aug 2014, at 21:05, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> FWIW, this is reported in
> 
>    https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53218
> 
> I was thinking of a dual-approach: Increase PROXY_WORKER_MAX_NAME_SIZE
> and making the truncation of the worker name (s->name) non-fatal
> (but logged at ALERT)...
> 

I've been bitten by this quite a few times as well. And always when you least 
expect it. 

Wondering if it is time to push long names into a uuid or hash; with a 
translation table/db file if needed. 

Dw. 

>> On Aug 29, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> I'd like to propose that we bump up PROXY_WORKER_MAX_NAME_SIZE
>> again, both in trunk but also allow for backporting to
>> 2.4.x as well.
> 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to