How wrong would it be to have a map_to_storage that simply filled out
r-finfo and returned OK (or the appropriate error) always? IE, no
directory or file walk. From what I understand, Directory and File
directives would be useless, but Location would still work. Is this
correct?
--
Brian
Brian Akins wrote:
How wrong would it be to have a map_to_storage that simply filled out
r-finfo and returned OK (or the appropriate error) always? IE, no
directory or file walk. From what I understand, Directory and File
directives would be useless, but Location would still work. Is this
I'm interested in doing some scalability testing with worker on Linux to see
what the O(1) scheduler and new pthread library buys us, and what happens with
different values for ThreadsPerChild. I decided to use a simple handler that
just nanosleep()s for a variable amount of time controlled by
...which is the same way we enable mod_status and mod_info. The key
thing here is that the URIs to access a Location enabled handler do not
map to the filesystem, so the directory walk is a waste of cycles. So
what can we do about it?
isn't that what map_to_storage is for?
Geoffrey Young wrote:
...which is the same way we enable mod_status and mod_info. The key
thing here is that the URIs to access a Location enabled handler do not
map to the filesystem, so the directory walk is a waste of cycles. So
what can we do about it?
isn't that what map_to_storage is
WHat happens if the handler DECLINES the request and do we care?
Bill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm interested in doing some scalability testing with worker on Linux to
see what the O(1) scheduler and new pthread library buys us, and what
happens with different values for ThreadsPerChild. I
Bill Stoddard wrote:
WHat happens if the handler DECLINES the request
My guess is that the default handler will be called, try to open a non-existant
file and send back a 404. I'll find out.
and do we care?
If it seg faults, violates protocol or something similar, I care. Other than
that I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
WHat happens if the handler DECLINES the request
My guess is that the default handler will be called, try to open a
non-existant file and send back a 404. I'll find out.
Make sure file 'silly' exists in documentroot and make sure it has access
Bill Stoddard wrote:
mod_status and mod_info both are enabled via Location containers.
mod_status never DECLINEs if it is the handler. mod_info DECLINEs if
the method isn't GET. Let me see what happens if I send mod_info some
other method.
My not so well formed thoughts are that if a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
WHat happens if the handler DECLINES the request
My guess is that the default handler will be called, try to open a
non-existant file and send back a 404. I'll find out.
and do we care?
If it seg faults, violates protocol or something similar,
Bill Stoddard wrote:
WHat happens if the handler DECLINES the request
My guess is that the default handler will be called, try to open a
non-existant file and send back a 404. I'll find out.
Make sure file 'silly' exists in documentroot and make sure it has
access protections coded in a
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
My not so well formed thoughts are that if a module claims it should
handle a request based on a SetHandler directive in a Location
directive, the server should not allow that handler to DECLINE the
request. Putting it another way, if the handler claims
12 matches
Mail list logo
