this change is wrong. please revert and explain what you need so we can
find the right solution.
On 3 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jerenkrantz2002/06/03 11:03:42
Modified:perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache TestConfig.pm
Log:
Only start one server instance until we
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Cliff is always mentioning something like t/TEST -d gdb or something
like that. Won't that run in -X mode automatically?
yes.
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:21:57AM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Cliff is always mentioning something like t/TEST -d gdb or something
like that. Won't that run in -X mode automatically?
The reason I don't like that is because if I need to restart
On 3 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aaron 2002/06/03 11:31:00
Modified:perl-framework README
Log:
Add a note about envoking gdb.
note that this and heaps of other stuff is in
httpd-test/perl-framework/Apache-Test/README
which is where it belongs, since Apache-Test is
The reason I don't like that is because if I need to restart the
server I have to quit my gdb. I want my gdb to last longer than
the process (so my breakpoints et al remain the same).
I'm confused why this commit is an issue. None of the other MPMs
start multiple processes - why should
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:34:39AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Not that I'm that experienced with the perl-framework over here,
it would seem to me that it's important to run the tests under
typical environments (ie multiple processes). Imagine a deadlocking
bug that we never hit in -X mode.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
The reason I don't like that is because if I need to restart the
server I have to quit my gdb. I want my gdb to last longer than
the process (so my breakpoints et al remain the same).
you can use the -maxclients option or edit httpd.conf by hand
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Um, as I pointed out, none of the other MPMs are configured like
this. Only prefork would start multiple servers. The others
always run under a single process. -- justin
yeah, cos threaded mpms can handle concurrent requests with one
process,
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:31:54AM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
The reason I don't like that is because if I need to restart the
server I have to quit my gdb. I want my gdb to last longer than
the process (so my breakpoints et al remain the
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Doug MacEachern wrote:
umm, not with MaxClients 1 it won't
oh wait, you changed StartServers not MaxClients, maybe that isn't a
problem.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Um, I think you misread my commit. All I changed was StartServers.
totally, i only read - @MaxClients@ + 1, never even saw StartServers.
disregard my comments, they were meant for MaxClients, your change is
fine with me.
Brian Pane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gregames2002/06/03 11:05:50
Modified:specweb99/specweb99-2.0 mod_specweb99.c
BTW, does anyone have SPECweb results for 2.0 that they're
able to discuss?
Not that can be published according to the SPEC rules, or are worth
Hello Apache-people,
I'm in the process of porting to apache 2 a module I developped for
apache 1.3. The 'mod_macro' module add macro definition capabilities
to apache configuration files. Macros are expanded on the fly and parsed.
With apache 1.3, I needed an initialization phase each time a
At 10:53 AM +0200 6/2/02, Stipe Tolj wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
At 11:12 AM +0200 5/31/02, Stipe Tolj wrote:
diff -ur apache-1.3/src/helpers/install.sh apache-1.3-cygwin/src/helpers/install.sh
--- apache-1.3/src/helpers/install.sh Tue Jun 12 10:24:53 2001
+++
There are 2 outstanding questions regarding the Cygwin patches that
Stipe submitted, which I would like resolved before the TR. It's also
looking like the 2 patches noted in STATUS will *not* be added in.
TR set for the morning of June4.
--
Can this very simple and straightforward patch please be put in before
1.3.25 is TRed ?
// Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:03:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] Apache 1.3
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mod_info will tell you some of this. ie. Look for ScriptAlias lines under
mod_alias.c and AddHandler cgi-script lines under mod_mime.c.
I was hoping to find a volunteer to actually hack on
--- Configure.orig Sat May 11 23:39:59 2002
+++ Configure Mon May 20 17:19:41 2002
@@ -1130,6 +1130,9 @@ if [ x$using_shlib = x1 ] ; then
*)
LD_SHLIB=gcc
LDFLAGS_SHLIB=-shared \$(CFLAGS_SHLIB)
+if [ -z `echo __ELF__ | $CC -E - |
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 02:52:32PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
I've just run into this, and it is present in 2.0.36..
the name-based sysvmem isn't appropiate as it will cause apache to
refuse to start when you upgrade a module (forcing a reboot)
a simple way to 'fix' is
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 08:41:53AM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
the problem is that on a machine with nothing else important running on
it I have 5-6 shared memory segments owned by root... and I have no way
of identifiying which one apache is complaining about.
was there a good reason why
1/ as 'PRE' is a latin prefix which means before, would it be
possible
for
the sanity of the developpers to either:
a/ call it *before* the configuration is read.
b/ or rename it 'post_config';-)
then the 'post_config' can be renamed 'post_post_config';-)
No,
Most of this code was lifted from 1.3 proxy_cache.c. There are two problems with this
code
that I am aware of and the first must be fixed before the patch is committed. First,
cache_read_entity_headers() is being called twice, once from mod_cache.c and now from
cache_storage.c. Perhaps removing
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 09:01:29AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 08:41:53AM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
the problem is that on a machine with nothing else important running on
it I have 5-6 shared memory segments owned by root... and I have no way
of identifiying
apacke -k start -n apache2 is broken
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 2:19 PM
Subject: httpd on win32?
What's the current status? The STATUS file still indicates that httpd
fails to start up on
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
apacke -k start -n apache2 is broken
Ah. Okay, thanks for the update. :)
This patch allows apache -k start -n apache2 to start the server. This is certainly
not
the correct fix but it should illustrate the problem for someone more familier with the
services code. The problem (step-by-step):
1. Issue apache -k restart -n apache2
2. The SCM issues apache -k
Okay, so basically what's happening is that we depend upon OpenSSL to
tell
us
when the data it got from the client resembles an HTTP request rather
than
an
SSL handshake. The test looks like this:
if ((n = SSL_accept(filter-pssl)) = 0) {
...
if
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
through what happens if you have RewriteRule .* http://foo.com; in your
config file when you send a non-SSL request to an SSL socket. What
..
Whatever you do to solve this, you need to ensure that if mod_ssl
detects this error case, it doesn't make it
From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
through what happens if you have RewriteRule .* http://foo.com; in
your
config file when you send a non-SSL request to an SSL socket. What
..
Whatever you do to solve this, you need to ensure that
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
I was actually just about to look at this problem if you are busy.
Go for it... I'm working on something else.
Thanks.
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
I was actually just about to look at this problem if you are busy.
Go for it... I'm working on something else.
Perhaps its just me, but I'm amused this is considered a bug.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
I was actually just about to look at this problem if you are busy.
Go for it... I'm working on something else.
Perhaps its just me, but I'm amused this is considered a bug.
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 04:40:41PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
This patch combined with the last few patches I've posted today allow
chunked trailer support again and now passes all httpd-test cases.
What we try to do is to ensure that ap_discard_request_body() is not
called before the
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 02:46:40PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Is it permissible for a subrequest (r-main != NULL) to read
input data from the client?
My current thought is only the original request can do that.
Am I right or am I wrong? -- justin
You might end up doing an internal
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 04:28:38PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Based on my interpretation of the RFC, I think this might be
a better way to handle the body case for MKCOL. I sort of
think this is what they were thinking rather than relying
on the request entity headers.
Thoughts? --
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 04:15:11PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
This patch switches mod_dav to use brigades for input when
handling PUT.
Cool!
My one caveat with this is what to do when the filters return
an error (spec. AP_FILTER_ERROR which means that they already
took care of it).
At 07:16 PM 6/3/2002, you wrote:
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 02:46:40PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Is it permissible for a subrequest (r-main != NULL) to read
input data from the client?
My current thought is only the original request can do that.
Am I right or am I wrong? -- justin
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 04:02:03PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
My one caveat with this is what to do when the filters return
an error (spec. AP_FILTER_ERROR which means that they already
took care of it). In this case, the handler should NOT generate
an error of its own and just return the
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 05:16:13PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
You might end up doing an internal redirect or somesuch to a subrequest to
have it process the thing. In which case, it is perfectly acceptable for
that guy to read the body.
Well, for an internal redirect, the request is promoted to
39 matches
Mail list logo
