On 11/17/2015 02:28 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Agreed... if we should optimize, then focusing on ap_proxy_port_of_scheme(),
which is part of the actual API, is likely best.
On Nov 17, 2015, at 8:20 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jim Jagielski
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Michal Karm wrote:
>
> the patch suggested by Yenn [1][2] did not help the performance
> results in any substantial capacity. The difference between having and not
> having
>
> if (uri.port && uri.port ==
> On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:38 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:53 PM, jean-frederic clere
> wrote:
>> On 01/09/2015 09:37 PM, jaillet...@apache.org wrote:
>>>
>>> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
>>>
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:38 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> +case 'h':
>> +if (strncasecmp(scheme + 1, "ttp", 4) == 0) {
>
> Should be 3, shouldn't it?
Yes, I corrected this already
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I would propose that if the below is NOT the cause, then the
> old version remain. There is a lot to be said for simplicity
> and clarity.
There is still a (per request) call to ap_proxy_port_of_scheme() in
Agreed... if we should optimize, then focusing on ap_proxy_port_of_scheme(),
which is part of the actual API, is likely best.
> On Nov 17, 2015, at 8:20 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I would propose
I would propose that if the below is NOT the cause, then the
old version remain. There is a lot to be said for simplicity
and clarity.
Plus, the whole reason for ap_proxy_port_of_scheme() was
to avoid the sorts of special numbers the below "hides"
in various locations.
> On Nov 17, 2015, at 7:41
On 01/09/2015 09:37 PM, jaillet...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jailletc36
> Date: Fri Jan 9 20:37:50 2015
> New Revision: 1650655
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1650655
> Log:
> Merge r1644503 from trunk
>
>* mod_proxy_ajp: Fix handling of the default port (8009) in the
> ProxyPass
Are you logging DEBUG?
> On Nov 16, 2015, at 11:53 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>
> On 01/09/2015 09:37 PM, jaillet...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: jailletc36
>> Date: Fri Jan 9 20:37:50 2015
>> New Revision: 1650655
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1650655
>> Log:
>>
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> Could you please try the following patch and see if it helps?
>
> Index: modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
> ===
> --- modules/proxy/proxy_util.c(revision
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:53 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> On 01/09/2015 09:37 PM, jaillet...@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
>> URL:
>>
On 11/16/2015 06:04 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Are you logging DEBUG?
No, I also though that was the problem and checked it ;-)
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
>
>> On Nov 16, 2015, at 11:53 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>
>> On 01/09/2015 09:37 PM, jaillet...@apache.org wrote:
>>>
12 matches
Mail list logo