On 03/02/2015 11:24 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
I meant to reply to all...
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/04/2015 02:53 PM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
httpd's mod_authn_dbd module
Hi,
the keep-alive timeout applied for sync MPMs (worker, prefork, 2.2.x)
is currently c-base_server-keep_alive_timeout, which implies this
oddity in the manual :
- docs/2.2/mod/core.html#keepalivetimeout: In a name-based virtual
host context, the value of the first defined virtual host (the
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
I propose to simply :
Index: modules/http/http_core.c
===
--- modules/http/http_core.c(revision 1663701)
+++ modules/http/http_core.c(working copy)
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
(this may not be expected though).
Indeed, some (many) modules seem to depend on c-base_server not
changing before and after ap_read_request().
c-base_server = r-server is probably a bad idea...
:)
On Mar 3, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
OTOH it makes it clear that the keepalive timeout belongs to the
IP:port the request was received on, and not to the server for which
the latest
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
OTOH it makes it clear that the keepalive timeout belongs to the
IP:port the request was received on, and not to the server for which
the latest request was handled on that IP:port.
I think I documented the behavior, but
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
OTOH it makes it clear that the keepalive timeout belongs to the
IP:port the request was received on, and not to the server for which
the latest
On 2/26/2015 1:00 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
In this case, if I can get the input socket, I might be able to
construct an APR_POLLSET_WAKEABLE pollset around it, and use
apr_pollset_wakeup() to break out of the poll whenever I want to write
output.
It turns out this works pretty well. The key
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Jacob Champion jacob.champ...@ni.com wrote:
I'm waiting on internal approval to post the five-patch set here (unless
of course there is any objection from the mailing list; I don't see a
lot of patch mail in the archives).
Please post here so that people
On 2/26/2015 1:04 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
On 2/25/2015 6:35 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:
2 x apr_file_pipe_create ?
I also found APR_POLLSET_WAKEABLE and apr_pollset_wakeup(), which appear
to encapsulate the self-pipe into the pollset itself.
It turns out file descriptors cannot be polled on
On 3 Mar 2015, at 21:00, Jacob Champion jacob.champ...@ni.com wrote:
It turns out this works pretty well. The key complication is that the
wakeup is lossy (multiple simultaneous wakeups are treated as one) so
it's important to drain the entire message queue before polling again.
I borrowed
On 3/3/2015 3:42 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Please post here so that people reaching this thread have a solution.
Sounds good. Approval could be quick, or it may take a while; I haven't
abandoned the thread. :)
Jacob Champion
LabVIEW RD
National Instruments
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
The other possibility is to create a server_config for http_module
(which does not exist, yet), and store the flag there.
I have tested the attached patch which works and (I think) preverves
backward compatibility.
If
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
This makes it quite unusable in a named based virtual host context
(but for the first vhost).
OTOH it makes it clear that the keepalive timeout belongs to the
IP:port the request was received on, and not to the server for
I guess the main question is what are the actual use-cases?
On Mar 3, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/30/2014 04:47 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Hello,
I have proposed a patch for PR39673 but I'm not sure it would be
accepted for mainline httpd, so here I am.
On 09/30/2014 04:47 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Hello,
I have proposed a patch for PR39673 but I'm not sure it would be
accepted for mainline httpd, so here I am.
Hi,
I would like to get more opinions on the patch Yann proposed in this
email. I fully understand that NTLM is not HTTP/1.1
16 matches
Mail list logo
