At 10:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>What we are learning here is simple. We need to do the counting in the
>core_output_filter. If that means adding a field to the conn_rec, or
>somehow getting the request_rec in the core_output_filter doesn't
>matter. The count needs to be done
> At first glance, I think there's an even more fundamental problem:
> the code in ap_cache_check_freshness() appears to be mixing times
> measured in microseconds (the result of ap_cache_current_age())
> with times measured in seconds (everything that it gets from the
> HTTP header).
And does th
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 16:04, Paul J. Reder wrote:
> I have run into a problem where the cache code randomly decides that a
> cached entry is stale or that the last modified date is some time in
> the future. I tracked it back to the ap_cache_check_freshness code
> which does a lot of checking of d
I have run into a problem where the cache code randomly decides that a
cached entry is stale or that the last modified date is some time in
the future. I tracked it back to the ap_cache_check_freshness code
which does a lot of checking of dates.
Some of this date checking code compares and assign
Ok, [overly?] provocative title. Let me illustrate, however;
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/
See any authn_foo/authz_foo? No, not at the moment. Once we
do, how on this green earth do we propose to provide online docs
for 2.0.43 and a hypothetical 2.0.44 with the auth overhaul? Folks
c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>What we are learning here is simple. We need to do the counting in the
>core_output_filter. If that means adding a field to the conn_rec, or
>somehow getting the request_rec in the core_output_filter doesn't
>matter. The count needs to be done in the core_output_filte
What we are learning here is simple. We need to do the counting in the
core_output_filter. If that means adding a field to the conn_rec, or
somehow getting the request_rec in the core_output_filter doesn't
matter. The count needs to be done in the core_output_filter, by tallying
the amount of
On 12 Oct 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 18:58, David Burry wrote:
>
> > This should also be a concern for anyone who's using mod_logio to charge for
> > bandwidth, because customers should be concerned about some serious
> > overcharging going on here!
>
> Only if you charg
Nope, that doesn't work. The number is always zero.
Bojan
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 12:22, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Anyway, I think what's causing this problem is the fact that mod_logio
> calculates the length of all brigades that are ready to be sent out. If
> the sending gets interrupted in the mi
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 13:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What we are learning here is simple. We need to do the counting in the
> core_output_filter. If that means adding a field to the conn_rec, or
> somehow getting the request_rec in the core_output_filter doesn't
> matter. The count needs to
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 20:59, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Let's get cracking and we can have a 2.1 release out by year end,
> depending on how far we go with changes in that version. Certainly
> some of the file-based stuff can finally be separated out, even if not
> as radically as GStein has
At 11:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
>until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
>
>But, you have worn me down. Create a new fscking tree, populate it and
>begin working on it. I will be fini
12 matches
Mail list logo
