On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to propose a 1.3.32 release with a TR either late this
week or early next.
Sounds good.
Though I'd like to point to the 2.0 status file, where a bugfix (to 2.0
and 1.3) is waiting for
Jeff Trawick wrote:
[Fri Sep 03 12:05:59 2004] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] File does not
exist: proxy:http://127.0.0.1:10101/cgi-bin/printenv
If nobody can/has reproduced the problem, I'll dig into it this weekend.
I had time dig into it enough to get the feeling that it is something
that the
* Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to propose a 1.3.32 release with a TR either late this
week or early next.
Sounds good.
Though I'd like to point to the 2.0 status file,
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo wrote:
Actually I'm talking about the two proposals on the top. If you are
interested in backport voting, you need to touch the STATUS file anyway and
should follow the commits there.
However.
*) mod_rewrite: Fix 0 bytes write into random memory
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
and vice-versa :)
As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 - 2.0 - 1.3.
So it makes sense for me to look into 2.0 for possible 1.3 changes, but not
vice versa ;-)
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:39:43 +0200, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the balancer is not found (the uri doesn't start with
proxy:balancer://) then the each particular scheme handler is called.
Scheme handlers aren't getting called since ap_proxy_pre_request()
returns something other than
André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
and vice-versa :)
As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 - 2.0 - 1.3.
So it makes sense for me to look into 2.0 for possible 1.3
There is a STATUS file in the 1.3 tree.
Geoffrey Young wrote:
André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
and vice-versa :)
As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 - 2.0 -
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
and vice-versa :)
As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 - 2.0 - 1.3.
So it makes sense for me to look into 2.0 for
Jeff Trawick wrote:
What is the config that you are using. Does you requests get
passed with previous version of proxy. If they do, please post the
config so we can find why is it breaking.
This is a very basic proxy config:
proxyrequests on
proxyvia on
allowconnect 8081 80 8080
OK.
From that
Mladen Turk wrote:
This is a very basic proxy config:
proxyrequests on
proxyvia on
allowconnect 8081 80 8080
OK.
From that config what would be remotes that
we could connect to?
Dynamically obtained from Via header or...?
Seems to me that the balancer is totally unusable in
such a configuration.
It should not be possibe for two threads to atomically decrement the refcount on the same object to 0.
I think there is a small window in there where it is possible to have the decs
happening on both CPUs one after the other making that bug possible in
decrement_refcount() and
Graham Leggett wrote:
proxyrequests on
proxyvia on
allowconnect 8081 80 8080
OK.
From that config what would be remotes that
we could connect to?
Dynamically obtained from Via header or...?
Seems to me that the balancer is totally unusable in
such a configuration.
Keep in mind proxyrequests on
Mladen Turk wrote:
OK, but still what are the remotes to connect to?
If they are dynamically determined then I'll need to fix the
way the workers are determined.
Right now each physical box we can connect to has to be at least
once specified in the config.
The question is: Is it OK to resolve that
On 6-Sep-04, at 10:37 AM, Ivan Ristic wrote:
[ The request is trivial to implement (at least I think so),
but the feature itself is very important. ]
Perhaps I don't understand the request, but wouldn't it be
straightforward for a module like mod_security to implement
this feature by using one
Sorry but when running the same test on SLES9 with 2.0.51rc1,
my error_log is full of threads segfaulting.
That is terrible. Do you have a simple testcase for cache-ignorant
folks like myself to play with?
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:14:22 +0200, Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
The tarballs for 2.0.51-rc2 (tag: STRIKER_2_0_51_RC2) are now located
at the usual location:
looks good to me on AIX 5.1
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:49:56 +0200, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you explain some real world usage of such configuration.
Configure your web browser to use Apache as an HTTP proxy.
P.S.
Seems I've missed a day in school when they talk about
ProxyVia headers :).
Forget about
--On Tuesday, September 7, 2004 4:27 PM +1000 Jason Rigby
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found that you can get mod_ssl included as a binary if you download
the binaries that include PHP and mod_perl. (That's how I got it
working for me) I think mod_ssl isn't included for some strange export
issues
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Can you explain some real world usage of such configuration.
Configure your web browser to use Apache as an HTTP proxy.
This is a forward proxy? Are you speaking about that?
If do, then the current implementation might be bogus,
cause frankly speaking didn't test that a lot,
I am usinga set of files I got from VeriTest
http://www.etestinglabs.com/benchmarks/webbench/default.asp
The tar file include about 6000 files of a total size around 60 MB.
Has you can see in the configuration MCacheSize and
MCacheMaxObjectCount force cached objects to be ejected
often. This
Perhaps I don't understand the request, but wouldn't it be
straightforward for a module like mod_security to implement
this feature by using one of the connection hooks, perhaps
create_connection? Or even by registering an input filter
at the beginning of the chain?
I don't know. I
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
and vice-versa :)
As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 - 2.0 - 1.3.
So it makes sense for me to look
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
Actually I'm talking about the two proposals on the top. If you are
interested in backport voting, you need to touch the STATUS file anyway and
should follow the commits there.
I'd still suggest posting them here. Until the lawyers here
Mladen Turk wrote:
This is a forward proxy? Are you speaking about that?
If do, then the current implementation might be bogus,
cause frankly speaking didn't test that a lot, but was
planning to do so.
Or I've missed the subject again :).
Proxyrequest on turns httpd into a forward proxy, yes.
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:32:09 -0400, Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:14:56 -0600, Jean-Jacques Clar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry but when running the same test on SLES9 with 2.0.51rc1,
my error_log is full of threads segfaulting.
Next I'll try to replicate
At 11:05 AM 9/8/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 7, 2004 4:27 PM +1000 Jason Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found that you can get mod_ssl included as a binary if you download
the binaries that include PHP and mod_perl. (That's how I got it
working for me) I think mod_ssl
Graham Leggett wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
This is a forward proxy? Are you speaking about that?
If do, then the current implementation might be bogus,
cause frankly speaking didn't test that a lot, but was
planning to do so.
Or I've missed the subject again :).
Proxyrequest on turns httpd into a
I find the possible need for the patch very disturbing; it implies tome a problem in the atomics code
I don't know.
I had the NetWare dec code reviewedby the people who
wrote/maintainour kernel, this is why I changed the
apr_atomic_dec(), and from what I understandthe
problem should be ours.
* Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
Actually I'm talking about the two proposals on the top. If you are
interested in backport voting, you need to touch the STATUS file anyway
and should follow the commits there.
I'd still
oops, didn't mean to send it privately
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:43:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Seg fault: Possible race conditions in mod_mem_cache.c
To: Jean-Jacques Clar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:38:38 -0600,
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:52:50 -0400, Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:14:22 +0200, Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
The tarballs for 2.0.51-rc2 (tag: STRIKER_2_0_51_RC2) are now located
at the usual location:
looks good to me on AIX 5.1
but
Hello,
I may be missing
something inmy Apache configuration, or maybe this is a well-known
problemBut, I can't seem to get mod_cache (with mod_proxy and
mod_disk_cache) to return a 304 Not Modified response even when all of the
headers of the in the HTTP request should produce a 304
Hi,
Here is the request and response transaction that should
have (I think) returned a 304 Not Modified. Previous to this
request/response, I had already requested the resource and verified that it was,
in fact, in the cache on disk...
GET /comm/include/stock/stock.css HTTP/1.1Host:
At 12:01 PM 9/8/2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
Actually I'm talking about the two proposals on the top. If you are
interested in backport voting, you need to touch the STATUS file anyway and
should follow the commits there.
[...] And no, I
Michael Corcoran wrote:
Here is the request and response transaction that should have (I think)
returned a 304 Not Modified. Previous to this request/response, I had
already requested the resource and verified that it was, in fact, in the
cache on disk...
If-Modified-Since: Wed, 07 Jul 2004
That's bad already. At any time when there are n threads with a"handle" to a cache object, refcount ought to be n in order to be ableto free it when refcount goes to zero.
Unless:
Condition 1) a mutex is held between the time that a thread gets ahandle to the cache object and when the thread
--On Wednesday, September 8, 2004 2:51 PM -0700 Michael Corcoran
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've looked at the code a little bit (Apache 2.0.50), and at first glance,
it seems as though proper 304 response handling might not actually be fully
implemented yet. Is that actually the case, or am I
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 7, 2004 2:48 PM +1000 Ian Holsman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really, but I'd like to see a patch posted to this list first before
committing it. There's a couple ways I could see implementing this, but
not sure which way you are intending to
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/09/08 19:35:51 $]
Release:
1.3.32-dev: In development. Jim proposes a release top of Sept.
1.3.31: Tagged May 7, 2004. Announced May 11, 2004.
1.3.30: Tagged April 9, 2004. Not
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/09/04 11:36:13 $]
Release:
2.0.51 : in development
2.0.50 : released June 30, 2004 as GA.
2.0.49 : released March 19, 2004 as GA.
2.0.48 : released October 29, 2003 as GA.
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/09/03 02:47:19 $]
Release [NOTE that only Alpha/Beta releases occur in 2.1 development]:
2.1.0 : in development
Please consult the following STATUS files for information
on related
I put the gory details on Bugzilla
(http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31126); I honestly
don't know what the best way to fix this problem is, though.
Basically, ap_directory_walk will, under certain circumstances, attempt
to read an .htaccess file from a complete filepath; that
43 matches
Mail list logo
