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=33900.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
My understanding about per server conf is that any structure allocated
in the server config handler should have a lifetime that is the same
as the one of the module. So the server config structure should be an
ideal place for caching values. Anyway in the following simple module
the dbg counter is
Taking a look at mod_mem_cache source code i have seen that it doesn't
use pools to allocate cache objects but i does so by means of
reference counting and simple calloc/free calls. I have also seen
that this module requires a Threaded apr to work. I am wondering the
reasons of this design
luca regini wrote:
Taking a look at mod_mem_cache source code i have seen that it doesn't
use pools to allocate cache objects but i does so by means of
reference counting and simple calloc/free calls. I have also seen
that this module requires a Threaded apr to work. I am wondering the
reasons of
Title: Message
I had problems with
LDAP modules in 2.0.53 on Windows. It authenticates fine, but when I shut
down apache I get those Microsoft alerts saying something went wrong. It
only happens when I have the ldap modules enabled.The problem is in
modules/experimental/util_ldap_cache.c in
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Bill Stoddard wrote:
luca regini wrote:
Taking a look at mod_mem_cache source code i have seen that it doesn't
use pools to allocate cache objects but i does so by means of
reference counting and simple calloc/free calls. I have also seen
that this module requires a
That's exactly what happens and i learnt it the hard way :).
Now my next question is: is there any ideal place provided by the
apache API to allocate a shared memory object?
Is there any source code example of such a use case?
Thanks.
Luca
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:11:57 -0500 (EST), Cliff Woolley
luca regini wrote:
Taking a look at mod_mem_cache source code i have seen that it doesn't
use pools to allocate cache objects but i does so by means of
reference counting and simple calloc/free calls. I have also seen
that this module requires a Threaded apr to work.
If you use prefork, each
Aaron Bannert wrote:
Just so I understand the problem correctly,
but that since the turnover is so quick you end up having children
lingering around with one or two thread slots and essentially
we approach the prefork scenario in terms of number of child
processes. Is this correct?
in worker +
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 08:49:52AM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
So what is failing to build? 2.1.3? Or trunk? Only on
win32, or on other platforms as well? Can you reproduce?
Note that 2.1.3 fails to build on Win32 because APR 1.1.0 doesn't build.
This Win32 failure is *not* an httpd
Which operating system you are using? If you are using unix os, this problem
may be due to the prefork process which will be created to serve for
each connection. In that case you may have to use shared memory...
Regards,
Asok
My understanding about per server conf is that any structure
So is there any progress with the issue or just nobody is interested?
arkadi.
On my medium busy FreeBSD and Linux servers I noticed that sometimes
apache leaves previous instance children in non-working state after
restart. Examination with ps/strace/truss shows that all of them
are writing to
On 8 Mar 2005, at 17:00, Arkadi Shishlov wrote:
So is there any progress with the issue or just nobody is interested?
I don't have the original post but I may have an alternative to piped
logs if this is a problem for anyone. Sorry for the plug, especially if
it's a bit off-topic but
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:57:55AM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
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
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:01:35PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
While I think this is a good idea, I'd like to consider renaming this
particular directive as I think the name is really confusing.
Does that mean you want me to hold off on committing this patch pending
a directive rename?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:01:35PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
While I think this is a good idea, I'd like to consider renaming this
particular directive as I think the name is really confusing.
Does that mean you want me to hold off on committing this patch
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
It's just that you brought up the point
of making the directive more intuitive - and I have problems from the word go
on this particular directive being intuitive. It's not.
In order to understand what this directive does, you need to know what
Cache-Control from the RFC
Eli Marmor wrote:
[...]
CacheForOffline? (or Cache4Offline)
Offline browsing is the main case where you need such absolute caching.
But it requires you to cache EVERYTHING. Including dynamic content, and
even different content according to different POST input. Maybe two
directives are needed,
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:00:05 +0200, Arkadi Shishlov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is there any progress with the issue or just nobody is interested?
me interested? yes
me have time right now? no
The more investigation work you can do, the better.
Sander Striker wrote:
Eli Marmor wrote:
[...]
CacheForOffline? (or Cache4Offline)
Offline browsing is the main case where you need such absolute caching.
But it requires you to cache EVERYTHING. Including dynamic content, and
even different content according to different POST input.
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:12 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
auth, GET args, private, public, must-revalidate, maxage, etc.).
My idea was
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:22:46PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:00:05 +0200, Arkadi Shishlov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is there any progress with the issue or just nobody is interested?
me interested? yes
me have time right now? no
The more investigation work you
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Then realize you need to support boatloads more clients, so you bump
up MaxClients to 5000. Now when load changes very slightly (as a
percentage of MaxClients), which happens continuously, the web server
will create or destroy a child process.
b) tweak worker MPM to
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:12 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
auth, GET args, private, public,
Greg Ames wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Then realize you need to support boatloads more clients, so you bump
up MaxClients to 5000. Now when load changes very slightly (as a
percentage of MaxClients), which happens continuously, the web server
will create or destroy a child process.
b) tweak
Eli Marmor wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:12 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
auth, GET args,
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
CacheOptions +StorePrivate +IgnoreClientControl +IgnoreServerControl
+CachePOST +CacheAuth
CacheOptions +all
CacheOptions -all
I suggest avoiding the +/- syntax which has proven confusing to many
users and adds very little in functionality. Just use
CacheOptions
Joshua Slive wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
CacheOptions +StorePrivate +IgnoreClientControl +IgnoreServerControl
+CachePOST +CacheAuth
CacheOptions +all
CacheOptions -all
I suggest avoiding the +/- syntax which has proven confusing to many
users and adds very little in
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 09:01:20PM +0200, Arkadi Shishlov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:22:46PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:00:05 +0200, Arkadi Shishlov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So is there any progress with the issue or just nobody is interested?
me
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 9:38 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It depends if you need it only for the server configuration, or for
dir_config;
In the latter case, you don't have another choice, you just NEED the +-
Actually, cache can't respect any dir config's (because it is a
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 08:11:10PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
The bug being discussed here is the same as this PR, right?
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26467
Yes.
arkadi.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 9:38 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It depends if you need it only for the server configuration, or for
dir_config;
In the latter case, you don't have another choice, you just NEED the +-
Actually, cache can't respect any dir
At 01:49 AM 3/8/2005, Sander Striker wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
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,
irrespective of it has the features folks want.)
So what is failing to build? 2.1.3? Or trunk?
At 10:22 AM 3/8/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Note that 2.1.3 fails to build on Win32 because APR 1.1.0 doesn't build.
This Win32 failure is *not* an httpd problem. Mladen reported that using
APR trunk worked fine with 2.1.3.
Perhaps you aught to respond to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] post;
[..cut..]
Hi all,
I recently noticed that we now have two votes (one from Justin and one from Bill, btw: thanks Bill) for backporting the
patch for report 30399 to 2.0.x.
As I and Dick Snippe (see http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=97403)
would like to see this
All,
We had a need here for mod_speling's case-correcting functionality but
we have generated filenames with very similar names so we were
constantly running afoul of its willingness to substitute the wrong
file when the correct one did not exist. I made a simple addition to
mod_speling to
Hi httpd folks,
It seems that Joe Orton introduced a bug while updating ssl_engine_io.c
between version 109499 and version 59. The same bug was introduced
into NetWare's mod_nw_ssl.c version 111327. (Please forgive me if that's
not the correct way to reference svn version numbers... I'm new
37 matches
Mail list logo
