Quoting Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-11-17 17:31:39 GMT):
Paul Querna wrote:
I have had an idea for replacing the perchild MPM boggling around inside
my head for awhile now. This is an idea for a different architecture to
allowing different UIDs to serve httpd requests. I am
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
Quoting Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-11-17 17:31:39 GMT):
Paul Querna wrote:
I have had an idea for replacing the perchild MPM boggling around inside
my head for awhile now. This is an idea for a different architecture to
allowing different UIDs to serve
Taking a snapshot look at the STATUS file at any given point in time
does not show the actual problem. The problem is the delay in getting
from point A (submitting a proposal) to point B (approval for backport).
For a hot issue with many interested parties (who actually hold voting
rights),
Hi all,
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need to
install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
Support for mod_backhand seems to be a significant reason (and getting
backhand ported to v2.0 would be a win): Apart from backhand, are there
in the experience of the
On Nov 18, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need
to install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
Support for mod_backhand seems to be a significant reason (and getting
backhand ported to v2.0 would be a win): Apart
On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 13:43 -0600, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need to
install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
Support for mod_backhand seems to be a significant reason (and getting
backhand ported to v2.0 would be a
Nathanael Noblet wrote:
On Nov 18, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need
to install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
Support for mod_backhand seems to be a significant reason (and getting
backhand
Interesting question.
I have just done a large scale review of our web server architecture and
have recommended a move to 2.0. There were a number of factors for not
moving, both
specific to our installation as well as in general. In general :
Remeber the old adage If it is not broke, do not fix
A can think of 4 big reasons, two from a developer standpoint and
two from an admin.
developer:
1. Builds and compiles in a minute, rather than several. This
means you can play around and develop more and compile
less.
2. More streamlined design; for some filters,
Jim Jagielski wrote:
A can think of 4 big reasons, two from a developer standpoint and
two from an admin.
developer:
1. Builds and compiles in a minute, rather than several. This
means you can play around and develop more and compile
less.
2. More streamlined
On Nov 18, 2004, at 12:16 PM, Ivan Ristic wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
A can think of 4 big reasons, two from a developer standpoint and
two from an admin.
developer:
1. Builds and compiles in a minute, rather than several. This
means you can play around and develop more and compile
I think people rely on apache 1.3 stability and security. many people
consider httpd-2.0 as too young and don't try to understand why it's better.
Does somebody have some percentage about 1.3 use and 2.0 ?
I don't think 1.3 is still here because of modules, there is too many
modules and too
Please don't forget:
1. Solaris 10 is shipping with 1.3.31
2. OpenBSD's fork of 1.3
--Brett.
Systems Administrator, RHCE
-Original Message-
From: Graham Leggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 11:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: People still using v1.3
Brett Lentz (Excell Data Corporation) wrote:
Please don't forget:
1. Solaris 10 is shipping with 1.3.31
Redhat is shipping 2.0 for long time now
2. OpenBSD's fork of 1.3
openbsd and the theocracy ?? hahaha cool
let them continue with 1.3
--Brett.
Systems Administrator, RHCE
-Original
Matthieu Estrade wrote:
I think people rely on apache 1.3 stability and security. many people
consider httpd-2.0 as too young and don't try to understand why it's
better.
Does somebody have some percentage about 1.3 use and 2.0 ?
I don't think 1.3 is still here because of modules, there is too
At 01:53 PM 11/18/2004, Nathanael Noblet wrote:
On Nov 18, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need to
install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
I think there is still a thought that php isn't mature on 2.x. (I'm using it)
From: Graham Leggett
are there in the experience
of the people on this list any
other significant apps out there
that are keeping people from
deploying httpd v2.x?
Because there can only be one
number one!
ASF told them over and over again
that it is number one. (rightly or not)
The
Personally, I have seen some hosting providers which I have talked to (and
worked with) hold back because existing client's htaccess scripts sometimes
experience quirks under 2.0.
In one case I have been privvy to, a test implementation was done with a
server that was practically a replica of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:29:31 PM
* Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
During ApacheCon several httpd PMC members got together to discuss
current issues with the httpd project and to try to find better ways to
manage the project. One of the issues that was
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 12:41 AM +0100 Astrid Keßler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Additionally, let's do 2.1 tarballs to bring the current development
branch to a wider group of devs and testers.
I plan to roll 2.1.1 as soon as the final import finishes: roughly a few
hours from now. ;-)
Quoting Ivan Ristic ivanr webkreator com (2004-11-17 17:31:39 GMT):
I've used FastCGI to give individual
users their own PHP engines (since PHP now comes with FastCGI protocol
support built-in).
This sounds useful - would you be willing to share some config file samples?
Max.
Graham Leggett , Thursday, November 18, 2004 14:43Hi all,
I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need
to
install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
I have no idea. Stupidity, laziness, fear of change.
Maybe it's modules. The bandwidth throttling module might be a
Title: RE: [NOTICE] Subversion conversion
Sweet!
I would vote to move it up one level.
Thanks,
Larry.
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:37 PM
To: CLI Dev
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Subversion conversion
At 04:52 PM 11/18/2004, Yussef Alkhamrichi wrote:
I've gone into the code and the only thing I can image that occurs is that
the web.config of one virtual directory is configured twice for the same
AppDomain.
Again, I'm curious, is one a child directory of another mount?
Either physical or
flood STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/07/01 20:55:12 $]
Release:
1.0: Released July 23, 2002
milestone-03: Tagged January 16, 2002
ASF-transfer: Released July 17, 2001
milestone-02: Tagged August 13,
25 matches
Mail list logo
