On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:32:21PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:40:44PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We still need to APR namespace protection. We tried to not namespace
protect things to begin with, and Apache
Getting long here. Watch out! :-)
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 08:17:10PM +0100, Elrond wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 07:40:21AM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
...
It might be interesting to examine the filters that we have in Apache right
now. They provide for the protocol-stacking, buffering, and
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 06:25:56AM +1100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
The issue here is, that the protocols, that are below SMB,
are more like sockets. From a clean point of view, they
should be implemented in the kernel, but none of us is
willing to write kerneldrivers for each OS
I'd also like to take a moment just to say that I'm describing what we
currently have.
much appreciate it. it's all network data, and you['ve basically already
implemented an advanced version of what i was prating-about-with, two and
a half years ago.
Pick your poison, and if the brigades
i'm going over to sander's at the w/e, we'll see if we can thrash it out.
Please let us know your result. We've talked about types of pools before.
One that keeps the current semantics, one that maps straight to malloc/free,
and one that handled shared memory.
I didn't know about a GPG
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 09:16:27PM +1100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
...
BRIGADE = { FILE, EOS }# FILE bucket and EOS (End Of Stream) bucket
becomes
BRIGADE = { packet header bytes, FILE, EOS }
We inserted a header without
so, one bucket can deal with the NetBIOS header.
Careful. We may be getting some terminology mixed up here.
we? nahh, just me
I think we're
definitely on the same page :-), but I'd like to clarify...
appreciate it.
*) in the above example, the brigade has a HEAP or POOL or some other
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but all these changes and problems are
simply to reduce the three parameters of a standard autoconf macro
to one parameter in an APR-specific macro? If so, then -1 -- that
kind of change is why our buildconf setup is so much less portable
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 02:17:05AM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
[...]
My personal, uninformed opinion :-) would tend towards adding new
OS-provided socket types to apr_socket_t (allowing all apps the benefit of
the new socket types; not just those that can fill in a func table), and
[...]
That
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
question. samba, in its search for info during ./configure-time, fails
certain tests (e.g. the setuid ones) if not run as root.
same for apr?
nope; no such tests
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
10 matches
Mail list logo
