> -Original Message-
> From: Roy T. Fielding
> Sent: Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010 21:21
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] How to Use strcmp to Check for Equality
> Without Confusing Your Fellow Code, Or: Isn't There a Macro for That?
>
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Malt
FYI, while you're doing this it might be interesting to make it explicitly
controllable by the origin:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5861
Cheers,
On 12/10/2010, at 9:43 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> RFC2616 allows us to serve stale content during outages:
>
>/* RFC2616 13.8
On Oct 19, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Javier Llorente wrote:
On Martes, 19 de Octubre de 2010 01:39:05 Igor Galić escribió:
- "Javier Llorente" wrote:
Hello list-mates,
I think that the current icons used in directory listing look a bit
old.
Perhaps it's time to make a call for help creating a n
- "Javier Llorente" wrote:
> On Martes, 19 de Octubre de 2010 01:39:05 Igor Galić escribió:
> > - "Javier Llorente" wrote:
> > > Hello list-mates,
> > >
> > > I think that the current icons used in directory listing look a
> bit
> > > old.
> > > Perhaps it's time to make a call for hel
Hi all,
Like mod_cache, many of the directives in mod_proxy should ideally be
per-directory scoped, when they are currently scoped per-server.
The attached patch makes the ProxyErrorOverride directive per-
directory scoped. Is it worth doing this for other proxy directives
where sensible?
On 18.10.2010 18:39, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:54:27AM -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
With a release on the way with a host of good bits, almost 2 years after its
previous release, it seems time that the group might consider the following
options...
[ ] Leave 2.0.x ope
On 19.10.2010 22:30, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 10/19/2010 3:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Of course they will still use it. If you want to mandate config
changes, then release it as httpd 3.x. Keeling over a website when
they perform a *minor* version upgrade is foolish. Version numbers
On Martes, 19 de Octubre de 2010 01:39:05 Igor Galić escribió:
> - "Javier Llorente" wrote:
> > Hello list-mates,
> >
> > I think that the current icons used in directory listing look a bit
> > old.
> > Perhaps it's time to make a call for help creating a new iconset?
> > I am not an icon des
On 10/19/2010 3:32 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>> Then fix the insane behavior.
>
> I don't think that's an option. Changing the behaviour of Limit will
> surely break some users' auth configs in subtle ways, which is much
> worse than a clea
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> IMO, removing Limit and LimitExcept would require a bump to
> >> httpd 3.x, since it would break almost all existing configs and
> >>
On 10/19/2010 3:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Of course they will still use it. If you want to mandate config
> changes, then release it as httpd 3.x. Keeling over a website when
> they perform a *minor* version upgrade is foolish. Version numbers
> are cheap.
The auth config / requires ch
On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> IMO, removing Limit and LimitExcept would require a bump to httpd
>> 3.x, since it would break almost all existing configs and
>> introduce security holes if the installer is not prepared to
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> IMO, removing Limit and LimitExcept would require a bump to httpd
> 3.x, since it would break almost all existing configs and
> introduce security holes if the installer is not prepared to
> rewrite them.
If the user is not prepared to change th
On 2010-10-19 at 15:21, "Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
>> And there are a lot of string compares in the Apache codebase. Everytime
>> you see a strcmp, you (or is it only me?) have to stop and think "well, is
>> this branch checking for equality
IMO, removing Limit and LimitExcept would require a bump to httpd 3.x,
since it would break almost all existing configs and introduce security
holes if the installer is not prepared to rewrite them.
Deprecating Limit and LimitExcept can be done in 2.4.x, which means
keeping their functionality int
On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> And there are a lot of string compares in the Apache codebase. Everytime
> you see a strcmp, you (or is it only me?) have to stop and think "well, is
> this branch checking for equality or the opposite?"
>
> I think this is a case where eith
On Monday 18 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> [x] Leave 2.0.x open to security/critical bug fixes only
Maybe one more release a few months after 2.4.0
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 12:47 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >> If it will be gone, let's get rid of it now. Now that you have
> >> the allowmethod module added, it seems we have sufficient
> >>
On 10/19/2010 12:47 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 10/19/2010 12:34 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>> It was my understanding that we remove Limit/LimitExcept after
>>> the first beta and I was hoping to provoke some comments from
>>> testers. D
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 12:34 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > It was my understanding that we remove Limit/LimitExcept after
> > the first beta and I was hoping to provoke some comments from
> > testers. Did I misunderstand the last discussion about this
On 10/19/2010 12:34 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
> It was my understanding that we remove Limit/LimitExcept after the
> first beta and I was hoping to provoke some comments from testers. Did
> I misunderstand the last discussion about this?
If it will be gone, let's get rid of it now. Now that
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 10/16/2010 4:59 AM, s...@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: sf
> > Date: Sat Oct 16 09:59:21 2010
> > New Revision: 1023227
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1023227&view=rev
> > Log:
> > core: Log a warning if or are used. They
On 10/16/2010 4:59 AM, s...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: sf
> Date: Sat Oct 16 09:59:21 2010
> New Revision: 1023227
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1023227&view=rev
> Log:
> core: Log a warning if or are used. They are
> deprecated and may go away in 2.4.
Limit and LimitExcept are bei
23 matches
Mail list logo
