On 2 Aug 2013, at 20:02, Rizzo, Christopher wrote:
The Apache HTTP server is rejecting the request (with 400 Bad Request) due
to this Hostname value in the header before a registered IPP Apache module
even sees it.
A quick check confirms what you say.
Is it possible to write a hook or
So I've been seeing lots of proxy: error reading status line from remote
server by mod_proxy lately. Usually this is caused by the race condition
between checking the connection state and the backend closing the
connection due to the keep-alive timeout. As Covener pointed out to me in
IRC, using
+1 for the theory, but I'm not sure if it's feasible or not.
On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Thomas Eckert thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com wrote:
So I've been seeing lots of proxy: error reading status line from remote
server by mod_proxy lately. Usually this is caused by the race condition
between
The typical way to solve this today is to know the keepalive timeout of the
backend and set ttl for this worker to a value a few seconds below.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. August 2013 14:29
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff:
Yes, the theory thing ... I wish I could have added an experimental patch
for such an input filter but I'm afraid that might take a long time for me
to finish. I'll try though I hope someone more knowledgeable will pick this
up.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
Hi dev@,
Though this is mainly a question for docs@, I thought I'd drop this
email into the dev@ list instead, since this is where I think
objections, if there are any, will arise.
Today, on various Internet channels, I have had to do my very best to
defend the use of mod_lua, ranging from people
On 2 Aug 2013, at 13:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:
In our documentation, we write the following:
mod_lua is still in experimental state. Until it is declared stable,
usage and behavior may change at any time, even between stable releases
of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file
True enough, but that's inelegant ;)
On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
The typical way to solve this today is to know the keepalive timeout of the
backend and set ttl for this worker to a value a few seconds below.
Regards
But effective and simple :-)
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. August 2013 15:20
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: mod_proxy, oooled backend connections and the keep-alive
race condition
True enough, but that's inelegant ;)
On Aug 2,
How about marking specific interfaces and directives as experimental,
and providing the normal guarantees for the others?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
How about marking specific interfaces and directives as experimental,
and providing the normal guarantees for the others?
... And maybe splitting into two modules?
(how do I know if I'm using experimental features)
--
Eric
+1 for the theory, but I'm not sure if it's feasible or not.
Some other ideas:
* Does something like a select/poll/getpeername() ever tell us of an
error when a write() doesn't?
* Could we give people an Expect: 100-continue option on the initial
client request?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. August 2013 15:47
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: mod_proxy, oooled backend connections and the keep-alive
race condition
+1 for the theory, but I'm not sure if it's feasible or
I think this does not work for GET requests or request without a request body.
Just re-read spec, you are right -- we are abusing this in a module as
a sort of extended handshake even w/ no body, but not against
heterogenous backends.
On 02.08.2013 14:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:
Hi dev@,
Though this is mainly a question for docs@, I thought I'd drop this
email into the dev@ list instead, since this is where I think
objections, if there are any, will arise.
Today, on various Internet channels, I have had to do my very best to
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Mikhail T. mi+t...@aldan.algebra.com wrote:
01.08.2013 22:47, Ben Reser написав(ла):
That's not a bug at all. In some cases it may be necessary for
authorization to run for sub-requests.
Could you give an example or two? Thanks,
Sure.
mod_autoindex
02.08.2013 20:17, Ben Reser написав(ла):
mod_autoindex automatically provides a directory listing of files
under a path. However, by default it doesn't display any paths that
you don't have access to, e.g. .htaccess. It does this by issuing
subrequests for those other paths so that authz can
17 matches
Mail list logo
