+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:47:33 +0200
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- mpm-itk is in production use at several sites -- for instance,
Isn't that also true of metux?
Two main disadvantages should be noted:
Thanks for being clear about these up-front.
- setuid() happens after
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:36:41PM +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
What specific applications are you running that require things to be
run as a distinct user? Are these applications implemented directly in
C as custom Apache modules, or are you writing stuff in other
languages, ie., such as
On 25/06/07, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:36:41PM +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
What specific applications are you running that require things to be
run as a distinct user? Are these applications implemented directly in
C as custom Apache modules,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 08:08:03PM +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Or you can use PHP under fastcgi. With fastcgi the code would run in a
separate process and you could have any number of processes
corresponding to whatever virtual hosts you have. Because it is a
separate process it can run
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 09:20:45AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
- mpm-itk is in production use at several sites -- for instance,
Isn't that also true of metux?
I don't know. Can you point me to any sites? Does Metux even support SSL yet?
That looks like a serious problem to me.
First there's
On 25/06/07, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 08:08:03PM +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Or you can use PHP under fastcgi. With fastcgi the code would run in a
separate process and you could have any number of processes
corresponding to whatever virtual
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 08:47:03PM +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Yes, it is obviously an alternative, but FastCGI has its own sets of
quirks, and PHP under CGI too (as far as I know; I'm no PHP user).
Quirks such as? Am not asking to dispute that there aren't any, just
asking out of ignorance
On 25/06/07, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 08:47:03PM +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Yes, it is obviously an alternative, but FastCGI has its own sets of
quirks, and PHP under CGI too (as far as I know; I'm no PHP user).
Quirks such as? Am not asking to
A Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) session has been scheduled for Tuesday,
July 24th, 9am US/Central* at the IETF Chicago meeting http://
www3.ietf.org/meetings/69-IETF.html to discuss proposed work in
revising the HTTP specification.
The proposed charter http://www.w3.org/mid/392C98BA-
[EMAIL
Nick Kew wrote:
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- setuid() happens after the request has been parsed, which means
that the server runs as root up until that point. (However, on a
system with capabilities, ie. Linux 2.6, almost all superuser
privileges are dropped, so you
On 6/25/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, have you considered a design where there are separate pools
of processes per-user, and these would be dispatched after the headers
are processed to the appropriate child?
The simplest option is to simply reuse the features
Joshua Slive wrote:
On 6/25/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, have you considered a design where there are separate pools
of processes per-user, and these would be dispatched after the headers
are processed to the appropriate child?
The simplest option is to
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:06:11AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
That said, have you considered a design where there are separate pools
of processes per-user, and these would be dispatched after the headers
are processed to the appropriate child?
Yes, I have considered it briefly, and
On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:04 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
So you've introduced something that looks much the same as the
traditional CGI overhead, but applied it to every request instead
of just CGI?
Every single _connection_, but yes.
How would that work for multiple requests on keptalive
Ok, partly playing a bit of devils advocate below :-).
On 06/25/2007 04:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jfclere
Date: Mon Jun 25 07:42:25 2007
New Revision: 550519
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=550519
Log:
Add sticky_path to solve PR41897.
Modified:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 12:13:31PM -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
How would that work for multiple requests on keptalive connections?
Wouldn't that allow me to send a sequence like
GET /yourpage HTTP/1.1
Host: yourhost.com
Connection: Keep-Alive
...
which would be dispatched to run as
17 matches
Mail list logo
