+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:05:45 -0700, Chris Darroch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Dan Poirier wrote:
...
I read through some previous discussion of the authz inheritance
behavior, but it doesn't seem to have considered the effect of having
Require all denied at the top level, which is overriding
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Dan Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One other idea occurs to me. Would it seem more intuitive if a
context that had no authz directives inherited the settings from its
predecessor, but as soon you added authz directives, it behaved as if
you were starting
Hello,
I thought that Tomcat (at least recent versions) was able to get the
full chain, but I guess I was wrong.
I'm in fact using Jetty behind mod_jk, and it exposes the full chain of
certificates in the javax.servlet.request.X509Certificate request
attribute, as expected (I am using
Subj says it all...
Mladen Turk wrote:
Bill Barker wrote:
Mladen's patch to mod_jk is simplier than this one, so I would prefer
it to this one. But I have no voting rights on this list :).
Right, I'll prepare something for mod_proxy as well.
It is on my TODO list for a long time.
Thank you. As I was
On 10/06/2008 03:59 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Dan Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One other idea occurs to me. Would it seem more intuitive if a
context that had no authz directives inherited the settings from its
predecessor, but as soon you added authz
On 10/06/2008 04:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Subj says it all...
Thanks for doing RM Jim. So c'mon guys. There must be someone
out there that reviews the remaining patch that misses only
*one* vote.
Regards
Rüdiger
Thanks a lot Sorin!
That got me well on my way. I set my module to run first, skip itself
after the first run, and then re-run the entire check_user_id phase
under it's control. I then inspect the return codes, manipulate the
result in the expired case (based on the saf module's output
Whether this is actually correct or not (remember, I'm a newbie Apache
module programmer), I had assumed the correct behavior would be to
handle the password reset logic in a separate phase (or at least a
second call within the same phase) to allow other modules a chance to
catch the result
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/06/2008 04:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Subj says it all...
Thanks for doing RM Jim. So c'mon guys. There must be someone
out there that reviews the remaining patch that misses only
*one* vote.
what do I need
On 10/06/2008 10:18 PM, Greg Ames wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/06/2008 04:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Subj says it all...
Thanks for doing RM Jim. So c'mon guys. There must be someone
out there that reviews the remaining patch that
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for reviewing. First of all I guess you should increase the
KeepAliveTimeout
to a large value like 5 minutes to make observations easier. Furthermore I
would increase
the ttl parameter of your BalancerMember to
13 matches
Mail list logo
