On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Deepak Nagaraj n.dee...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The ContentDigest option does not seem to convert the MD5 to network
byte order before doing base64 encoding. The RFC says:
It's 16 bytes, what reordering did you want to do? Byte order only
applies to stuff larger
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Deepak Nagaraj n.dee...@gmail.com wrote:
It's 16 bytes, what reordering did you want to do? Byte order only
applies to stuff larger than individual bytes.
The RFC considers it as a 128-bit digest (=number). It can be
divided into 16 bytes in either host order
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Deepak Nagaraj n.dee...@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIK that really doesn't apply. It's not an int, it's a 16-byte
'array' that shouldn't be reordered.
You're right about MD5. I checked the MD5-algorithm RFC (1321). It
specifies that the digest is generated in
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Deepak Nagaraj n.dee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Olaf van der Spek
olafvds...@gmail.com wrote:
But on the other hand, HTTP Content-MD5 header RFC (1864) explicitly
mentions network byte ordering as I originally quoted. Being
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Gregg L. Smith li...@glewis.com wrote:
And what is passing for an excuse for a local PCRE install
these days probably doesn't look like 7.8 or later, with
various fixes we are vulnerable to.
Isn't that the responsibility of the distributor?
This does not leave
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Edgar Frank ef-li...@email.de wrote:
I'd much rather see effort put into mod_proxy_fcgi to support this use
case. I wish somebody, perhaps myself, had time to work on it. It
doesn't seem that hard a task.
Just an idea, I though about - what would you think
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Edgar Frank ef-li...@email.de wrote:
Maybe, in implementing this in mod_fcgid and making it configurable, Apache
can serve more intelligent backends better.
Wouldn't it be better to have the backend tell the frontend that it
supports this feature? Manual
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Edgar Frank ef-li...@email.de wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to have the backend tell the frontend that it
supports this feature? Manual configuration should be avoided if
possible.
Yes, you're right. In a FCGI_GET_VALUES request, the backend can send
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Edgar Frank ef-li...@email.de wrote:
2009/11/25 Olaf van der Spek olafvds...@gmail.com
Yes, you're right. In a FCGI_GET_VALUES request, the backend can send
arbitrary name-value-pairs. Unfortunately there is no standard way to tell
the frontend
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
(1)
mod_fcgid should be capable of specifying an external FCGI server.
(2)
In conjunction with (1), mod_fcgid should be able to select the backend
server based on request data.
I'd much rather see effort put into
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
What was the reason to import mod_fcgi again? Wasn't the ETA of
mod_proxy_fcgi too high?
mod_fcgid was imported because it was
* widely used
* not actively maintained
* httpd developers were willing to adopt it
I felt
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM, pqf p...@mailtech.cn wrote:
In this case, one httpd thread(process) will have to bind to one FastCGI
process.
I don't think connect() to a local pipe/unix domain socket is the
bottle-neck, so let it be?
Doesn't it require an extra round trip? It's probably
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
What advantages does fcgid have over proxy_fcgi (except being ready)?
integrated, on-demand process management
How valuable is that?
In most cases a static number of backends seems fine.
mod_fcgid isn't in 2.2, right?
On Jan 25, 2008 6:18 PM, Akins, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/24/08 3:14 PM, Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Working on making a FastCGI based setup the recommended approach
instead of mod_php is probably more important then async. Actually,
it's a prerequisite.
Fastcgi
On Jan 28, 2008 8:04 PM, Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 12:36 PM, Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008 6:18 PM, Akins, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/24/08 3:14 PM, Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Working on making
On Jan 28, 2008 9:22 PM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/
faq.installation.php#faq.installation.apache2
If you feel you have to use a threaded MPM, look at a FastCGI
configuration where PHP is running in its own memory space.
Is that what is meant
On Jan 28, 2008 9:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
I agree that FastCGI is the better technical solution, I'm just
stating that neither the Apache documentation nor the PHP
documentation seems to state that. Even worse, they hardly document
We were using normal worker MPM with keepalives for this test. The current
stable event would have helped with idle keepalive threads, but the system
didn't seem to care.
But when using mod_php, worker is not recommended, right?
I doubt prefork scales as well as worker.
Working on making a
On 4/16/06, Joost de Heer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:28:10PM +0200, Joost de Heer wrote:
hmmm...that doesn't help me much. I'm more interested in large files in
mod_dav. Right now I can't upload anything much bigger than 700MB.
IMO, that's
On 12/4/05, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 12/3/05, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd also like to brainstorm a better solution to running Rails/Django
applications inside of the httpd process than the SCGI/FastCGI solution
which most people use.
On 12/3/05, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that most of the communites are still in VC 6. Remember the key
reason we keep using it, MS dropped support for exporting makefiles. With
no makefiles, you are roped into supporting only version x or newer Studio
products.
On 11/30/05, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:01:55AM -0500, Paul A Houle wrote:
So if one uses worker and few processes (i.e. lots of threads per),
then Solaris should be fine?
That's what people think, but I'd like to see some numbers.
On 11/30/05, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:43:24PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It was hardly nobody, I may be shoddily inexperienced with the win32
port, but I did go to the trouble of testing apr-iconv on win32
On 11/29/05, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Okay, I lied, slightly:
Shouldn't the
On 11/29/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I would agree, as long as we remove it for the What's New
pages until it actually works and builds.
My point, obviously, was that we can't have it both ways and
say
Hi,
I've been wondering, do the Apache developers plan to develop and/or
include an official FastCGI-like module in Apache?
I know there's for example AJP but that appears to be aimed
specifically at Java.
An official module would be handy so that PHP can be run in separate
processes without
On 11/27/05, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
I've been wondering, do the Apache developers plan to develop and/or
include an official FastCGI-like module in Apache?
I know there's for example AJP but that appears to be aimed
specifically at Java
On 11/27/05, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:11, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
I've been wondering, do the Apache developers plan to develop and/or
include an official FastCGI-like module in Apache?
Nope. There's the old mod_fastcgi and the more up
On 11/28/05, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:09, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Nope. There's the old mod_fastcgi and the more up-to-date mod_fcgid
out there. Why does the world need another?
But not in the official Apache distribution.
How
On 11/3/05, Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
All versions need unclean shutdown at least, not sure about keepalive. If
you
have new data to provide on this front that's great and very welcome, please
send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bugzilla is not a discussion
On 11/21/05, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 for beta status on NetWare. This will probably also be a +1 for GA
as well as long as nothing significant turns up over the next several
days of testing.
Will there be (beta) Windows binaries available before it become GA?
I wouldn't
On 11/21/05, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 11/3/05, Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
All versions need unclean shutdown at least, not sure about keepalive.
If you
have new data to provide on this front that's great
On 11/22/05, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is that needed?
Wouldn't changing the default configuration not affect existing sites
as those keep their existing configuration?
Yes. But I still have not seen a very clear statement that this
configuration is no longer needed in
On 11/5/05, Marc Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a bit more complex than that.
At a certain point, a fix was released for IE 6 to correct the
incompatibility that needed the 'ssl-unclean-shutdown' directive (I guess
it's KB 831167). At this point, we had two different flavours of IE+SSL
On 11/4/05, Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:37:10PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
All versions need unclean shutdown at least, not sure about keepalive.
If you
have new data to provide on this front that's great and very welcome
Joe Orton wrote:
All versions need unclean shutdown at least, not sure about keepalive. If you
have new data to provide on this front that's great and very welcome, please
send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bugzilla is not a discussion or support forum,
however.
I've been running without
On 11/3/05, Anish Mistry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 03 November 2005 09:37 am, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
All versions need unclean shutdown at least, not sure about
keepalive. If you have new data to provide on this front that's
great and very welcome, please
On 8/9/05, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
cost of devoting a senior engineer for the next month or two to help
'field test' apache 2.2 in a high scale environment, identifying and
submitting patches to 2.2 is Y.
Just wondering, when will Win32 binaries of 2.1/2.2 be available for
On 5/22/05, Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stat64(/var/run/apache2/ssl_scache, 0xb8a0) = -1 ENOENT (No such
file or directory)
open(/var/run/apache2/__db.ssl_scache, O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_EXCL|
O_LARGEFILE, 0644) = -1 EEXIST (File exists)
/var/run/apache2/ssl_scache
On 4/13/05, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
I originally posted this feature request to the bug tracker, but Joe
Orton suggested it'd post it here instead, so here it is.
I'd like to see a new 'MPM' that basically works like this:
A single or few
On 5/10/05, Phillip Susi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why have a separate 'frontend' and 'backend'?
Because for example PHP is not thread-safe and PHP may (easily) crash
(and you don't wish to allow that to crash the entire server).
Or because you wish to run one backend as user A and another
On 5/8/05, Phillip Susi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like this idea. I think one of the best and most important things
that apache is doing these days is trying to migrate away from being a
web server and towards a generic server platform. Eventually I would
like to be able to run apache to
On 4/22/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:04:54AM +0530, Devendra Singh wrote:
Hi,
I am writing to the Developer List because I did not get any response on
the Users List and thought that the topic might be relevant to the dev list.
If a request
On 4/20/05, Ivan Barrera A. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no chance ?
Why not use the time since the start of the request instead?
On 4/20/05, Ivan Barrera A. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 4/20/05, Ivan Barrera A. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no chance ?
Why not use the time since the start of the request instead?
Ok.. i tought about that, but the problem arises when i need to check
every
On 4/13/05, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
I originally posted this feature request to the bug tracker, but Joe
Orton suggested it'd post it here instead, so here it is.
I'd like to see a new 'MPM' that basically works like this:
A single or few
Hi,
I originally posted this feature request to the bug tracker, but Joe
Orton suggested it'd post it here instead, so here it is.
I'd like to see a new 'MPM' that basically works like this:
A single or few-threaded, non-blocking frontend that accepts incoming
connections, receives requests and
47 matches
Mail list logo
