On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, David Burry wrote:
Has anyone worked on an Apache test suite? You know, like how many things
have a make test that runs all sorts of tests... or perhaps a separate
package that runs tests... I might be interested in starting one but would
rather build upon other's work
At 04:05 PM 10/12/2002, Sander Striker wrote:
From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 October 2002 22:18
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would
look at httpd-test.
Ryan
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, David Burry wrote:
Has anyone worked on an Apache test suite? You know, like how many things
have a make test that runs all sorts of tests... or perhaps a separate
package that runs tests... I might be interested in starting one but would
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 11:41:01PM -0400, Tim Wilde wrote:
...
I don't understand all this fighting about branching and development. I
don't understand why Apache 2.0 has been released, and recommended for
production use, if, as many seem to be saying, it isn't
feature-complete.
Apache 2.0
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:39:28AM -0400, Jeff Stuart wrote:
...
And now you want to create an Apache 2.1! Oy! Give the third party
developers a LITTLE bit of time to catch up. :)
The presence of an httpd 2.1 would have *ZERO* effect on them supporting a
2.0 release. If anything, it would
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- mod_negotiation.c Fri Aug 9 15:21:57 2002
+++ mod_negotiation.c.new Sat Oct 12 15:47:36 2002
@@ -2881,7 +2881,7 @@
int res;
int j;
-if (r-finfo.filetype != APR_NOFILE
+if (!r-finfo || r-finfo.filetype
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
more and more like that 2.0 tree is considered, by many of the
developers, little more than a playground to hack around in. There
seems very little regard for
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Glenn wrote:
Glenn, thanks I had deleted Jim's message and I was re-creating it. You
made it so I didn't have to. :-)
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
more and more
On 12 Oct 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- mod_negotiation.c Fri Aug 9 15:21:57 2002
+++ mod_negotiation.c.new Sat Oct 12 15:47:36 2002
@@ -2881,7 +2881,7 @@
int res;
int j;
-if (r-finfo.filetype !=
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 charge for outgoing bandwidth. On incoming bandwidth, I
Hello:
I sent this patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but have seen
no traffic on the list nor have I gotten a response
from the list. Is that list still used?
I am attaching it to this email. Can someone
please commit it to the CVS?
Thanks,
Neil.
--
Neil Aggarwal
JAMM Consulting, Inc.
Hi,
I found a problem with non-blocking write to pipe.
Current code (2.0.43) is as following.
httpd-2.0.43/srclib/apr/file_io/unix/readwrite.c:apr_file_write()
do {
Takashima, Makoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I found a problem with non-blocking write to pipe.
Current code (2.0.43) is as following.
httpd-2.0.43/srclib/apr/file_io/unix/readwrite.c:apr_file_write()
FYI... this
Okay, this takes care of item 4 from the list below. Thanks Brian, saves
me from having to do the commit. :)
What about the other 3? Should they be fixed by the change from
apr_time_t to apr_int64_t? Apr_time_t is really apr_int64_t under
the covers and I was seeing only the lower 32 bits being
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
2.1: async write support. And async read support, but
that may take a lot longer.
My belief is that you
HI!
I wrote you last time about my development of a new
apache module.
mod_blanks: a module for the Apache web server which
would on-the-fly
remove unnecessary blank space, comments and other
non-interesting
things from the served page. Skills needed: the C
langugae, a bit of
text parsing
One correction.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:40:21 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/* write request of {PIPE_BUF} bytes or less may fail */
/* because it is atomic when writing to pipe or FIFO */
while (rv == (apr_size_t)-1
Speaking as an end user, my problem is this:
Module development. PHP STILL does not officially support Apache 2. It
is still marked as experimental. Mod_perl still doesn't support Apache
2.
For me, these are the 2 third party modules I use. Yes, the onus DOES
rest on the developers of these
Sorry - nevermind that, obviously I was being extra sloppy, here is
another stab at this.
It segafults if a translate_name doesn't set req-filename. (I don't know
how probable this is, but it did happen to someone using mod_python,
perhpas the way to solve it is to make mod_python guard against
I'll preface this by saying I'm not much of a developer myself, but I use
a number of major open source software packages, and follow their
development models pretty closely.
I don't understand all this fighting about branching and development. I
don't understand why Apache 2.0 has been
--- mod_negotiation.c Fri Aug 9 15:21:57 2002
+++ mod_negotiation.c.new Sat Oct 12 15:47:36 2002
-2881,7 +2881,7
int res;
int j;
-if (r-finfo.filetype != APR_NOFILE
+if (!r-finfo || r-finfo.filetype != APR_NOFILE
|| !(ap_allow_options(r) OPT_MULTI)) {
On 13 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wrowe 2002/10/12 20:25:04
Modified:server log.c
Log:
Some errors are impossible to fathom, without the user knowing certain
base numbers. This patch introduces (EAP ##): Eap message for the EAP
errors, (OS ##): Message
sorry folks, I knew it would be that easy, I should have looked more closely
at the web site too ;o)
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: apache test suite?
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002,
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:18:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I think there is a much easier way to satisfy everybody and stay in the
2.0 tree. The problem right now, is that the MMN isn't granular
enough. All we know, is that we broke binary compatibility. But, we
don't know
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made
the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they announced
the changes to the list, and invited people to
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 11:23:23PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
2.1: async write support. And async read
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made
the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they announced
At 10:35 PM 10/12/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 13 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wrowe 2002/10/12 20:25:04
Modified:server log.c
Log:
Some errors are impossible to fathom, without the user knowing certain
base numbers. This patch introduces (EAP ##): Eap
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:59 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm calling for a consensus opinion that the mod_auth changes
are simply too radical to introduce into a current version. We keep
treating the GA tree as a development branch. Many newcomers
(with
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:00 PM -0700 Brian Pane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
2.1: async write support. And async read support, but
that may take a lot longer.
My belief is
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 11:41:01PM -0400, Tim Wilde wrote:
I'll preface this by saying I'm not much of a developer myself, but I use
a number of major open source software packages, and follow their
development models pretty closely.
I don't understand all this fighting about branching and
From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 October 2002 22:18
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
2.1: async write support. And
This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
more and more like that 2.0 tree is considered, by many of the
developers, little more than a playground to hack around in. There
seems very little regard for end users or developers (API changes
with every release... yeah,
Has anyone worked on an Apache test suite? You know, like how many things
have a make test that runs all sorts of tests... or perhaps a separate
package that runs tests... I might be interested in starting one but would
rather build upon other's work if some of it has already been done...
Dave
Anyway, I've most likely upset a few people, and I apologize in
advance. Just take these words from someone who *still* wants Apache
to achieve world domination :)
As a user I'll try to help achiving this goal ;)
About the specific issue: I (again as a user) like the idea of at least
putting
I finally figured out why a 2.1 branch bothers me so much. It isn't being
done the way it should be done. When apache-nspr was created, it wasn't
because there was a big discussion on-list and Dean decided to go do the
work. When apache-apr was created, it wasn't because Bill, Manoj, and I
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:00 PM -0700 Brian Pane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
2.1: async write support. And async read
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the message above, I don't
think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in
interpreting it that way?
+++1
--
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 finishing 2.0.
And yes, this is very harshly worded. We
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.
Fine. That's no reason to deprecate modules mid-stream. Was it a good
choice to rename mod_access to
Funny enough, there is a variable called unused_bytes_sent in that
function - kind of makes it obvious it's not being used ;-)
I thought that making f-r non-NULL was rejected due to complications
with other protocols that don't understand requests? Anyway, we don't
really need to store anything
Hi,
I found a problem with mod_cache and mod_proxy...
when cache is storing the data + headers in memory, it doesn't care
about Transfert-Encoding...
So if reverse proxy receive a response by multiple brigade, with the
header Transfert-Encoding=chunked, mod_cache store it in mobj-header_out.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
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.
Fine. That's no reason to deprecate modules mid-stream.
lurk state=off/
Pardon me for butting in here, but as someone who is building a product
based in part upon Apache/mod_proxy, I *strongly* agree with Graham. I've
had to hack the mod_proxy code more than once to deal with this issue, and
I'd rather not have to. I agree that it should be
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:18:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I think there is a much easier way to satisfy everybody and stay in the
2.0 tree. The problem right now, is that the MMN isn't granular
enough. All we know, is that we broke
At 05:59 AM 10/13/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
The API *is* stable. The auth changes did nothing to the API except to
expand it a bit for *new* auth systems. Existing auth modules are
unaffected.
To the extent that they don't choose to use the new hooks, I believe
you are right. Certainly no MMN
At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the message above, I don't
think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in
interpreting it that way?
+++1
Then I want
On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 04:47, fabio rohrich wrote:
HI!
I wrote you last time about my development of a new
apache module.
mod_blanks: a module for the Apache web server which would on-the-fly
remove unnecessary blank space, comments and other non-interesting
things from the served page.
Well, unless someone else registers some disagreement, it appears to be
unanimous:
proxy should not monkey wth Content-Length (more correctly, proxy
should depend on the filters to do any required chunked/C-L fiddling,
and the filters should be responsible for always emitting responses
which
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:39:28AM -0400, Jeff Stuart wrote:
Speaking as an end user, my problem is this:
Module development. PHP STILL does not officially support Apache 2. It
is still marked as experimental. Mod_perl still doesn't support Apache
2.
For me, these are the 2 third
Hi,
I've just seen you are commiting patch to mod_cache...
I haven't receive answer for my post on dev about the chunk/CL
problem...
Could you tell me what do you think about to let me know how can I code
a godd patch against the problem.
Regards,
Estrade Matthieu
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the message above, I don't
think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:59 AM -0700 Greg Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The API *is* stable. The auth changes did nothing to the API except
to expand it a bit for *new* auth systems. Existing auth modules are
unaffected.
Exactly - we only reorganized our aaa modules. No hooks or
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 20:19, Bojan Smojver wrote:
r-bytes_sent =
(total bytes sent) - ( (total size of brigades) - (content length) )
Actually, I think this maths wouldn't work for SSL because content
length is calculated before it. Hmm...
Bojan
At 04:36 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:59 AM -0700 Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There were some directive changes, and certainly some different
modules to load, but nothing in the API department. Moreover, I
think we can deal with the directives
That's because I'm simply fixing a compiler emit. I'm afraid I'm totally
unqualified to judge your patch, since I haven't spent any time to grok
the experimental/mod_cache work.
I'm certain the maintainers will offer feedback to my commit, and
review your patch, as they have available cycles.
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 12:30 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far, Two Bills beg that we defer the auth reorg to 2.1. If I
hear three, I will consider it appropriate to veto the auth
reorganization for 2.0, until we start 2.1. The technical
justification
At 1:05 PM -0500 10/13/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Then I want to clarify ... you both object to the statement that developers
within HTTP should be free to work on what they want. Obviously, you are
both stating that we should not introduce 2.1 anytime real soon now.
In a nutshell, here
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 4:57 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I challenge you to do so; document both the old and the new so that
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/
clearly documents both the pre-new-auth and post-new-auth. I'm
presuming it can't be done
At 03:33 PM 10/13/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the message above, I don't
think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
we should take
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT
of this thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills
and who knows whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably
--On Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:17 PM -0700 Aaron Bannert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That seems like a one-way street to me. How come it's ok to work on
the auth changes in 2.0 but it's not ok for others?
As Sander pointed out, the aaa changes were made first, then we voted
on where they
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 03:33 PM 10/13/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the message above, I don't
think you are advocating a 2.1
To both lists, since this patch affects APR and sendfile.
The attached patch introduces the EnableSendfile directive for httpd. Jeff and
I have seen several cases, including NFS shares and so forth, that are not
compatible with apr_sendfile. It works similarly to EnableMMAP but the
differences
At 05:35 PM 10/13/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So we have a radical change. I proposed we create 2.1 to incorporate auth.
I've read them all. We discussed this before the patch was incorporated
into the release. The majority do NOT believe
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT of this
thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills and who knows
whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably force this change
into 2.0 for docs and upgrade reasons.
So we
At 05:33 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT
of this thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills
and who knows whom all
* rbb wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I did
try to wrap my brain around documenting both pre and post auth in the
same /docs-2.0/ tree. It didn't make any sense. Perhaps someone
else can do better.
I will write the docs to handle both. I commit to having them
André Malo wrote:
I've tried to find a solution. It's certainly not complete, but a first
suggestion. I simply fetched the old module docs from the Attic, named
them obs_* and modified the xslt a little bit. As proposed by
Joshua they got the status Obsolete and also a large warning on top of
The fields would be used to correctly record the number of input and output
bytes ACTUALLY read/written per connection. This would not be the same as
r-bytes_sent, due to headers and encryption, but it could be used later on to
log this information using %I and %O. At this point I'm unsure how to
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
doesn't really help developers.
Could you please explain why breaking out the
At 08:36 PM 10/13/2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
André Malo wrote:
I've tried to find a solution. It's certainly not complete, but a first
suggestion. I simply fetched the old module docs from the Attic, named
them obs_* and modified the xslt a little bit. As proposed by
Joshua they got the status
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
doesn't really help
I'm not sure if I missed a spot somewhere in core_output_filter, hopefully not.
After playing a bit with core_input_filter and not getting what I wanted, I kept
the original input filter in mod_logio (which was working fine to the best of my
knowledge). However, with the introduction of two new
I'm aware that some people might not like this due to the fact that it's
inserting yet another default filter, but here it is, just for completeness.
Bojan
diff -u --recursive --new-file httpd-2.0-vanilla/include/ap_mmn.h
httpd-2.0/include/ap_mmn.h
--- httpd-2.0-vanilla/include/ap_mmn.h Wed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wrowe 2002/10/13 20:13:20
Modified:server/mpm/winnt child.c
Log:
Handle WSA_IO_PENDING as well.
My VisualC++ 6 (with MS Platform SDK May 2002) chokes on lines 528 and
529.
There seem to be two )s missing, as well as a boolean operator (XX)
76 matches
Mail list logo
