DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33880] New: - Only URIs that map to files can be Executed

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33880. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta

At 07:22 AM 3/6/2005, Sander Striker wrote: I assume we are in agreement that the current AAA discussion shouldn't hold up moving to 2.2 either. Absolutely it does. Either 2.1-dev has made implementing this worse (my essentially workable proposal for 2.0 would no longer work at all, with no

Re: Multiple AAA providers

At 12:03 PM 3/6/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 10:59:30PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Ok, as Justin and I are in significant disagreement ... to summarize; we (collectively) would like to see some mechanism for multiple configurations of the same 'provider'

handler per extension

Hi all, Is there a way to set up (in httpd.conf) a content-handler module to be executed only for a specific extension? More clear, I have a mod_abc.c. I have to test if the request_rec *r-filename ends with .abc or I can set up my module in httpd.conf, by specifying the extension .abc? ---

Re: handler per extension

Laszlo wrote: Hi all, Is there a way to set up (in httpd.conf) a content-handler module to be executed only for a specific extension? More clear, I have a mod_abc.c. I have to test if the request_rec *r-filename ends with .abc or I can set up my module in httpd.conf, by specifying the

Re: Multiple AAA providers

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 12:16:05AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: These choices overlook Brad's suggestion, which I still think is the best: [ ] Implement across providers Single AuthProviderAlias real-provider-name alias directive. I did not overlook it. What layer do you

Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 12:19:45AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 07:22 AM 3/6/2005, Sander Striker wrote: I assume we are in agreement that the current AAA discussion shouldn't hold up moving to 2.2 either. Absolutely it does. Either 2.1-dev has made implementing this worse (my

Re: Multiple AAA providers

I believe that we are talking about coding at the provider layer (ldap, file, etc.). The problem here is that I am not sure what the following means: [ ] Implement globally across schemes and providers Single AuthConfig xxx directive, but as it's not in the scheme which iterates the

Host and Type Container

Any thoughts about having two new config containers like these? Host and HostMatch Only apply config when ap_get_server_name(r) matches the directive. This could go after we walk the location. I have some hacks in some modules where the same Virtual server answers for multiple names but must

Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 07:22 AM 3/6/2005, Sander Striker wrote: I assume we are in agreement that the current AAA discussion shouldn't hold up moving to 2.2 either. Absolutely it does. Either 2.1-dev has made implementing this worse (my essentially workable proposal for 2.0 would no

Re: Host and Type Container

Brian Akins wrote: Any thoughts about having two new config containers like these? Host and HostMatch Only apply config when ap_get_server_name(r) matches the directive. This could go after we walk the location. +1, in concept. I just was looking at the ap_get_server_name() function, and I

Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta

On Mar 7, 2005, at 1:19 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 07:22 AM 3/6/2005, Sander Striker wrote: I assume we are in agreement that the current AAA discussion shouldn't hold up moving to 2.2 either. Absolutely it does. Either 2.1-dev has made implementing this worse (my essentially workable

Re: Host and Type Container

Paul Querna wrote: I just was looking at the ap_get_server_name() function, and I didn't like how it behaves when UseConicalName is 'on'. It currently will return 'r-server-server_hostname'. This makes it hard for a dynamic vhosting module to set it per-request. If we copied the

Re: worker MPM: it sucks to have minimal MaxSpareThreads

On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: Any comments on these two separate proposals? b) tweak worker MPM to automatically bump the value of MaxSpareThreads to at least 15% of MaxClients, with a warning written to the error log I like this best, because is requires no action on the user's

Re: Host and Type Container

Jim Jagielski wrote: Paul Querna wrote: I just was looking at the ap_get_server_name() function, and I didn't like how it behaves when UseConicalName is 'on'. It currently will return 'r-server-server_hostname'. This makes it hard for a dynamic vhosting module to set it per-request. If we

Re: Puzzling News

On Feb 28, 2005, at 1:17 PM, Paul A. Houle wrote: Honestly, I don't see a huge advantage in going to worker. On Linux performance is about the same as prefork, although I haven't done benchmarking on Solaris. Under low-load conditions prefork often out-performs worker. Under high-concurrency

Re: worker MPM: it sucks to have minimal MaxSpareThreads

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:35:12 -0800, Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: Any comments on these two separate proposals? b) tweak worker MPM to automatically bump the value of MaxSpareThreads to at least 15% of MaxClients, with a warning

Re: Host and Type Container

Paul Querna wrote: Hmm. Less sure about this one. It seems like it overlaps with other things like AddOutputFilterbyType, but, it might be a better way to handle it anyways: Type application/xml AddOutputFilter XSLT;DEFLATE TransformOptions +ApacheFS /Type I have cases where I need to

Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta

Paul Querna wrote: I think it should be hacked into mod_authnz_ldap, and if it works, then work can be done to generalize it to all the authnz modules. Right now we really don't know what is required to get it done. It is all just mailing list talk and theory. The trouble is that any work

Re: Multiple AAA providers

At 10:11 AM 3/7/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote: I believe that we are talking about coding at the provider layer (ldap, file, etc.). Absolutely not my intention. Again, I do not want to have each provider have to reimplement the same code and parsing. I want a single module to do so, and the

Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta

At 10:21 AM 3/7/2005, Paul Querna wrote: I disagree. The current authentication in 2.1 is far far better than what 2.0 has. I have been using it in production variations for over 2 years now. Just the ability to use any authentication backend with Digest is a huge improvement. ++1 - and

Re: Multiple AAA providers

I believe that we are talking about coding at the provider layer (ldap, file, etc.). Absolutely not my intention. Again, I do not want to have each provider have to reimplement the same code and parsing. I want a single module to do so, and the providers to be oblivious (but still work.) Let

Re: Multiple AAA providers

--On Monday, March 7, 2005 5:47 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely not my intention. Again, I do not want to have each provider have to reimplement the same code and parsing. I want a single module to do so, and the providers to be oblivious (but still work.)

Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta

--On Monday, March 7, 2005 5:37 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ++1 - and I've always agreed. My only question is does the new API make it impossible to do simple things. ... If the new API makes things more difficult, it's a regression. This AAA provider discussion just

request_rec, no_cache

Hi, There is a no_cache field in the request rec. It only seems to be set by mod_negotiation. Given the big chunk of comments at mod_negotiation.c:2920 I'm not sure if we actually need this field, or if we can reach the same result in another fashion (without some dodgy flag). Thoughts? Sander

Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta

Jim Jagielski wrote: I vote +1 for a beta. Ditto. Sander

[PATCH] mod_cache, expand impact of CacheIgnoreCacheControl

Hi, Currently CacheIgnoreCacheControl On only ignores Cache-Control: no-cache and Pragma: no-cache. I'd like to add ignoring Cache-Control: max-age=... and Cache-Control: min-fresh=... as well. This would give the admin more control, and would also make the directive slightly more intuitive IMO.

Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta

jakarta-tomcat-dev reports Gump can't build, but since they haven't given us details so not much we can do about it. Fails to even build on Win32. -1 for beta on 2.1.3. Onward to 14 ++1 to Sander's efforts to roll out 2.1.4 ... let's get it right (at least, let's have something that builds,

Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: jakarta-tomcat-dev reports Gump can't build, but since they haven't given us details so not much we can do about it. Fails to even build on Win32. -1 for beta on 2.1.3. I think we passed the 2.1.3 station already. Onward to 14 ++1 to Sander's efforts to roll out 2.1.4