Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
That seems rational to me. The reason for proposing [EMAIL PROTECTED] is so
that tomcat-dev'ers wouldn't have to swallow the full bandwidth of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (converse of the problem where they asked anyone in [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
follow [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:06:39PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Thursday, August 12, 2004 3:52 PM -0400 Glenn Strauss
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I saw so much repeated code for parsing brigades, that I created a
readahead API: ap_brigade_ra(). It is passed similar arguments as
those
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:20:14AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Thursday, August 12, 2004 2:51 AM -0400 Glenn Strauss
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of code duplication between modules. For example, the behavior of
line-mode is vauge and requires that callers re-parse the brigade
to
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:19:59 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:57 AM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although he's subscribed to all three lists, I'd ask that they go either
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] The
The 2.0 ap_reclaim_child_processes logic seems to be broken - it never
resets the waittime variable as it did in 1.3; so the parent will wait
for up to 23 minutes (sic) in total for a stuck child process. (SIGSTOP
a child and strace the parent to see for yourself)
This updates the logic to be a
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:51:23 +0100, Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 2.0 ap_reclaim_child_processes logic seems to be broken - it never
resets the waittime variable as it did in 1.3; so the parent will wait
for up to 23 minutes (sic) in total for a stuck child process. (SIGSTOP
a child
At 07:20 AM 8/13/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
trawick 2004/08/13 05:20:53
Modified:modules/proxy proxy_util.c
Log:
axe some unused variables and don't log an error code that
hasn't been initialized
-ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_ERR, rv, s,
+
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:07:27 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:20 AM 8/13/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
trawick 2004/08/13 05:20:53
Modified:modules/proxy proxy_util.c
Log:
axe some unused variables and don't log an error code that
hasn't been
Hi,
I have arranged the logic to send the request and the body to Tomcat, now it
works for both chunked and not-chunked.
What is not yet working is when the Tomcat starts to send data before having all
the body and then reads a little more body data.
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
Index: proxy_ajp.c
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Therefore, folding might only be possible to do in ap_http_filter, but
it can't go down further as into core_input_filter (which is where we
now call apr_brigade_split_line). A new getline_folding filter right
in front of ap_http_filter would
Hello,
I was wondering if there's any potential harm in increasing the
LimitRequestFieldsize from it's current value of 8k to something more
(like 32k).
Thanks
-Madhu
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 12:37:30PM -0400, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Therefore, folding might only be possible to do in ap_http_filter, but
it can't go down further as into core_input_filter (which is where we
now call apr_brigade_split_line).
Glenn Strauss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I really don't like the very confusing AP_MODE_* semantics
Would they be less confusing if the behavior was more consistent?
No, because of the burden these modes place other filters (eg
mod_deflate). Downstream input-filters /
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 01:21:15PM -0400, Greg Ames wrote:
Glenn Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:51:13PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Please back up a bit.
Why do you think the modes should be combined? -- justin
More details:
-
Why bitflags, you ask?
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 02:36:38PM -0400, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Glenn Strauss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are suggesting that there be no line-mode to read from filters,
I am.
then we might also need some sort of way to push excess data back up
the filter chain if we pulled it,
Glenn Strauss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I'm not sure the answer to this one:
Are protocol filters attached to the request (I think so)
or to the connection? If attached to the request, then
wouldn't they need to push-back excess data before the request
finishes if the data is to be
At 04:58 AM 8/13/2004, NormW wrote:
Good evening Bill, All...
Please direct these comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - b.t.w., you
can check out the latest httpd-2.0 HEAD and pick up the entire proxy
solution (you must explicitly --enable-proxy-ajp and have the ajplib
sources there too.)
Someone
I'd like to comment further... Not only is a disturbing message sent to the
error log, but a SIGTERM is also sent to the child process. If I understand
correctly the SIGTERM will likely interrupt any properly implemented child
process shutdown and the child process will exit ungracefully. If it's
From what I can see, there seems to be a parameter mismatch for the
scheme_handler hook. For example, the scheme_handler
ap_proxy_connect_handler() is defined as:
int ap_proxy_connect_handler(request_rec *r, proxy_server_conf *conf,
char *url, const char
Good morning Brad,
Thanks for knocking on the httpd.apache.org door the latest updates now
work all the way through to apache2.nlm without issue... can now see what I
can do with the nlm's. Give a regards to the commiters at
devAThttpd.apache.org.
Norm
From what I can see, there seems to
Can someone please explain what this function does when partial=0? why
does it prepend ./ only if the path includes :/ in it? what's
happening here? the API doesn't document this nuance. What kind of input
does it take care of? I can see it used by mod_autoindex, but may be it
never hits this
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 03:08:17PM -0400, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Glenn Strauss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I'm not sure the answer to this one:
Are protocol filters attached to the request (I think so)
or to the connection? If attached to the request, then
wouldn't they need to
Glenn Strauss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 03:08:17PM -0400, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Glenn Strauss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I'm not sure the answer to this one:
Are protocol filters attached to the request (I think so)
or to the connection? If attached
If there are no objections I'd like to fix the naming of the arguments and
doxygen comments, as they seem to be a result of copy-n-paste.
ap_sub_req_*_uri to use new_uri
ap_sub_req_*_file to use new_file
Index: include/http_request.h
obviously the release candidate from last week (or was it the week before)
has been cancelled due to some semi-major code revisions. are we in a
position where we can think about rolling a new candidate?
--Geoff
25 matches
Mail list logo
