On Sunday, June 29, 2003, at 06:18 PM, Jacek Prucia wrote:
Please have another look at:
http://cvs.apache.org/~jacekp/manual/
This is actually what I'm going to commit tommorow. It has bugs, empty
places,
but at least mentions every element/attribute available (at least I
hope so).
Looks like
looks good, but what happens when 1.3 is used? Shouldn't it always
return preforked?
doh!
here's a better patch.
--Geoff
Index: Test.pm
===
RCS file:
/home/cvspublic/httpd-test/perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache/Test.pm,v
Hi All,
I got a bug report for the latest release of
MasonX::ApacheHandler::WithCallbacks, which uses Apache::Test for its
testing. My question is this: I use Apache::TestMM and
Apache::TestRunPerl in my Makefile.PL to set up the test suite.
However, many users may not have Apache::Test
I can avoid this by checking to see if Apache::Test loads and only using
it if it does. But then, how would I set up the tests to run after
CPAN.pm has installed Apache::Test? Does it run Makefile.PL again?
I don't ever use CPAN.pm, so I don't know if the way I have been going about
it
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
I don't ever use CPAN.pm, so I don't know if the way I have been going
about it actually works or not, but my standard 1.0 Makefile.PL (which
was linked to in the perl.com article) looks something like
sub MY::test {
eval {
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
this makes 'make test' echo the error string or run the tests,
depending on whether A::T is installed. in either case, 'make test'
is successful (I hope :)
Looks like it would be. I decided to use a different approach. Since
some of
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 12:11 PM, David Wheeler wrote:
BEGIN{
if (eval {require Apache::Test}) {
Apache::Test-import(qw(have_lwp plan));
require Apache::TestRequest;
Apache::TestRequest-import(qw(GET POST));
plan tests = 43, have_lwp;
} else {
Hi,
a couple of weeks ago I upgraded our servers from 2.0.43 to 2.0.46.
Since then, child processes on our internal server either exit with a
segmentation fault or keep running but take all CPU power. Hanging
processes occur at a rate of about 5 per hour. As far as I can see the
URLs they are
Thanks for the consideration. I'll look forward for your feedback.
-Madhu
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 6:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apache 1.3.x - Problem with handling ErrorDocument for 413
?
On Monday,
Hi Peter,
When you do a tusc, do you see the process looping on 'sendfile' ?.
If 'yes', I believe it's a transport layer bug (and we need some system
information), and I've been trying to duplicate it for the last couple of
months, without any success. It'll be nice if I can get access to
--On Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:03 PM -0700 Marc M. Adkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A FAQ Wiki might be useful. Then we could copy chunks of emails into the
wiki and later reference the wiki pages by URL. This would be a temporary
collecting point for the data pending formal documentation, and as
--On Saturday, June 28, 2003 8:24 AM -0400 Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anybody agree that something like this is is part of the formal
definition of our API?
Apache header files contain declarations for a number of variables and
functions. Many of these are part of the API, while
--On Sunday, June 29, 2003 2:05 PM -0700 Marc M. Adkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been working on a module and quite unexpectedly I found that my
AddHandler directive was taking affect at a global level even though it was
defined within a virtual host block. So it was affecting Apache
I've been working on a module and quite unexpectedly I found that my
AddHandler directive was taking affect at a global level even
though it was
defined within a virtual host block. So it was affecting Apache manual
pages that weren't in the virtual host for which I had created the
Hi,
is there any plan to release Apache 2.1 or 2.2 in the near future or is there
a kind of roadmap or something?
Bye and thanks,
Werner.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 09:25:55AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, June 28, 2003 8:24 AM -0400 Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anybody agree that something like this is is part of the formal
definition of our API?
...
+1. -- justin
+1 here, also.
Altho... I
Call for votes ;-)
There's a patch residing in the 2.0 STATUS file (for some reason), which
manages infinite loops of internal redirects and subrequests. It's already
acked for 2.0 includsion and it would be nice, if someone could review the
1.3 patch (http://cvs.apache.org/~nd/recursion13.patch)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:25 AM
striker 2003/06/30 18:25:07
Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH CHANGES STATUS
include Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH http_core.h
modules/http Tag:
18 matches
Mail list logo
