Iirc php has php_value and php_admin_value but they are used to override
parameters set in the php.ini file so that's not the same.
For apr and lua see peterodding.com/code/lua/apr/docs/
Bertrand Mansion
Mamasam
Le 24 juil. 2012 19:28, "Daniel Gruno" a écrit :
> Dear dev@,
> I've been looking
Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 24.07.2012 19:40, Joe Orton wrote:
>> The test case for PR 45434 seems to have regressed across 2.2->2.4.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45434
>>
>> I have not tried to understand the mechanics here, but a dumb
>> side-by-side analysis found a mis
Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Dear dev@,
> I've been looking into mod_lua for some time now, and have created an
> external library with lot of functions that make use of the AP/APR C API
> (such as ap_expr calls, scoreboard reading, sha1/md5/b64 functions, dbd
> and sendfile support etc). While doing so
On 24.07.2012 19:40, Joe Orton wrote:
The test case for PR 45434 seems to have regressed across 2.2->2.4.
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45434
I have not tried to understand the mechanics here, but a dumb
side-by-side analysis found a missing piece, below. 2.2 hardcodes thi
On 24.07.2012 19:23, Cantor, Scott wrote:
I'm seeing a build bug on a Solaris box with a very recent GCC version against
the Apache 2.4 headers, which I'm wondering about.
All my AP_INIT_TAKE1 macros for command handling are failing with:
error: expected primary-expression before '.' token
Loo
The test case for PR 45434 seems to have regressed across 2.2->2.4.
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45434
I have not tried to understand the mechanics here, but a dumb
side-by-side analysis found a missing piece, below. 2.2 hardcodes this
as "real + 11" but 2.4 uses the cons
Dear dev@,
I've been looking into mod_lua for some time now, and have created an
external library with lot of functions that make use of the AP/APR C API
(such as ap_expr calls, scoreboard reading, sha1/md5/b64 functions, dbd
and sendfile support etc). While doing so, I've also thought about how
to
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:05:34AM +, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
> Looks good. Slight optimization:
>
> If addr == NULL we can just skip the whole while (conf_addr) {
> loop.
Thanks to all for the feedback.
main fix: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1365001&view=rev
pool use fix:
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Jung [mailto:]
> Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 12:49
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ProxyBlock question
>
> On 24.07.2012 11:22, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> > (But reading that code again, you also lead me to another bug; the use
> > of apr_sockad
On 24.07.2012 11:22, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:46:12AM +0200, Rainer Jung wrote:
IMHO if the admin explicitely configured an IP in the ProxyBlock
list we should nevertheless check. For this case there's already a
somewhat related warning in the docs which we could enhance for t
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 11:37
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: [PATCH] Re: ProxyBlock question
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 08:42:34AM +, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
> wrote:
> > So after this rant I come
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 08:42:34AM +, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
> So after this rant I come to the conclusion that your proposed approach is
> the best:
>
> Only compare the names and not the IP's in the proxy case.
Attached does this - any comments? I suppose this requires a maj
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:46:12AM +0200, Rainer Jung wrote:
> IMHO if the admin explicitely configured an IP in the ProxyBlock
> list we should nevertheless check. For this case there's already a
> somewhat related warning in the docs which we could enhance for this
> new case.
>
> It looks like
On 24.07.2012 10:20, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:55:27AM +, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
Thanks. The patch reminded me of a special situation where the patch
might not be suitable: If the forward proxy just forwards everything
to the next proxy e.g. because it cannot
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 10:20
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ProxyBlock question
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:55:27AM +, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
> wrote:
> > Thanks. The patch reminded me of
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:55:27AM +, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
> Thanks. The patch reminded me of a special situation where the patch
> might not be suitable: If the forward proxy just forwards everything
> to the next proxy e.g. because it cannot do DNS lookups of the target
> U
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Jung [mailto:
> Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 09:40
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ProxyBlock question
>
> On 24.07.2012 08:58, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Joe Orton > Sent: Montag,
On 24.07.2012 08:58, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Joe Orton > Sent: Montag, 23. Juli 2012 22:06
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: ProxyBlock question
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 03:41:19PM -0400, Eric Covener wrote:
b) if it's not the desired behaviou
18 matches
Mail list logo
