I'll redo my test with Apache 2.0.16 and tell you
more after that :)
-
Henri Gomez ___[_]____
EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (. .)
PGP KEY : 697ECEDD ...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:52 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Apache 2.0.18 problem with mod_jk and
>
>
>On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
>>
>> >> I didn't have problem with static page.
>> >
>> >That would follow. The bug is generally only seen when
>subrequests are
>> >involved (eg, mod_include's include virtual and exec cgi
>are broken by
>> >this bug), because the file/mmap/etc buckets from the
>subrequest which
>> >should get passed back up to the main request go out of scope.
>>
>> Could you explain me why lynx and netscape didn't have this sort
>> of problem ? When I look the packet using ethereal they seems
>> to be very similar. 2 packets (600 + 5)...
>
>No, I can't. That's why I said I wasn't 100% sure that this
>is the same
>issue... just 95%. ;-)
>
>--Cliff
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
> Cliff Woolley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Charlottesville, VA
>
>
