On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 13:59, Mladen Turk wrote:
You have a simple option though - grab 2.0. Replace the modules/proxy/
tree with 2.1-dev and voila - buildconf - configure - make install.
Any docs on how to actually use the balancer? Looking at the source
isn't helping me :)
Thanks..
--
Should we see the works on mod_proxy and ajp support in the upcoming 2.0.51 ?
Regards
At 07:55 AM 9/2/2004, Henri Gomez wrote:
Should we see the works on mod_proxy and ajp support in the upcoming 2.0.51 ?
No, not in 2.0.51 (and to your following question of 2.0.x later
releases, also likely no.)
Yes, in 2.1.0.
It was commented that mod_proxy is becoming quite stable - bug
fixes
Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
Tomcats.
Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
future 2.0.x release, since Graham, Mladen and Jean-Frederic works
hard to
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Henri Gomez wrote:
Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
Tomcats.
Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
future 2.0.x release, since
At 09:25 AM 9/2/2004, Henri Gomez wrote:
Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
Tomcats.
Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
future 2.0.x release, since Graham,
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
Tomcats.
Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
future 2.0.x release
Admins understand why n.x -
At 12:59 PM 9/2/2004, Mladen Turk wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
future 2.0.x release
[...] please don't expect them
to sympathize when n.x.z - n.x.(z+1) starts breaking things, this
undermines the confidence in one of the
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I'm going to start a TR cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday.
Objections?
Sander
How is this going?
[Anxiously awaiting 2.0.51 tarballs...]
--
Jess Holle
From: Jess Holle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:04 PM
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I'm going to start a TR cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday.
Objections?
Sander
How is this going?
[Anxiously awaiting 2.0.51 tarballs...]
Something got in the way.
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 06:32:12PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
Something got in the way. I've got a round tuit reserved for today though ;)
Would be good if you could pick up the tip of the APR/-util 0.9 branches
to avoid the build failures on the revisions you tagged.
joe
- Original Message -
From: Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 06:32:12PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
Something got in the way. I've got a round tuit reserved
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:28:31PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 06:32:12PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
Something got in the way. I've got a round tuit reserved for today though ;)
Would be good if you could pick up the tip of the APR/-util 0.9 branches
to
Sander Striker wrote:
I'm going to start a TR cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday.
Objections?
With the imminent release of APR v1.0, would it be possible to make the
default build of v2.1.0 link to an external install of APR v1.0, instead
of including a dedicated apr within the srclib directory
Hi,
I'm going to start a TR cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday.
Objections?
Sander
--On Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:08 PM +0200 Sander Striker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to start a TR cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday.
Objections?
Vote early and often for APR 1.0 so that 2.1 can use an official 1.0 release
of APR. ;-) -- justin
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I'm going to start a TR cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday.
Objections?
Sander
Got a few 2.0 backports from 2.1 I need to drum up support for but otherwise +1
Bill
Same here. I need another vote for the util_ldap.c backport
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:21:22 AM
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I'm going to
18 matches
Mail list logo