+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm not sure about this... is the patch complete or are
other things being added at some point? For example:
It was mostly copy/paste from mod_jk where it was
not reported for a failure on any platform.
Just make some code cleanup.
Also, does this mean that the
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Davi Arnaut wrote:
store_body:
.. if (is_file_bucket(bucket))
copy_file_bucket(bucket, bb);
Probably, but that doesn't allow for creating a thread/process that
does the copying in the background, which is my long term goal.
Also, simply doing
Tampering with signed cookies.
--
Key: MODPYTHON-191
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-191
Project: mod_python
Issue Type: Bug
Components: core
Affects Versions: 3.2.10
On 09/30/2006 01:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Sep 30 04:26:26 2006
New Revision: 451582
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=451582
Log:
Move new struct member to the end of the struct,
so we can keep the compatibility.
Sorry for nitpicking, but I am
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=451582
Log:
Move new struct member to the end of the struct,
so we can keep the compatibility.
Sorry for nitpicking, but I am still missing the minor bump.
There was no 2.3 releases, so no need for version bump.
Regards,
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Davi Arnaut wrote:
store_body:
.. if (is_file_bucket(bucket))
copy_file_bucket(bucket, bb);
Probably, but that doesn't allow for creating a thread/process that
does the copying in the background, which is my long term goal.
Also,
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Simpler, yes. But it only has the benefit of not eating all your
memory...
Well, that was the goal. Maybe we could merge this one instead and work
together on the other goals.
As I have said before, we have a large patchset that fixes a bunch of
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Simpler, yes. But it only has the benefit of not eating all your
memory...
Well, that was the goal. Maybe we could merge this one instead and work
together on the other goals.
As I have said before, we have a large patchset
Mladen Turk wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=451582
Log:
Move new struct member to the end of the struct,
so we can keep the compatibility.
Sorry for nitpicking, but I am still missing the minor bump.
There was no 2.3 releases, so no need for
Paul Querna wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=451582
Log:
Move new struct member to the end of the struct,
so we can keep the compatibility.
Sorry for nitpicking, but I am still missing the minor bump.
There was no 2.3
Mladen Turk wrote:
But the trunk is usually build as is with all custom modules.
What's the point of it if we need to preserve backward compatibility.
(For what version, SVN head from DD/MM/ or what).
When the first version gets tagged from trunk, then we can have a MMN.
Until then, the
Paul Querna wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
But the trunk is usually build as is with all custom modules.
What's the point of it if we need to preserve backward compatibility.
(For what version, SVN head from DD/MM/ or what).
When the first version gets tagged from trunk, then we can have a MMN.
Hello Thanh,
This is regarding apache
which is not coming up with PHP. If you can give me some suggestions I will
move it further.
I found that Apache has a
DSO(Dynamic Shared Object). Using this DSO it tries to register any third party
shared library which has been compiled as a
We have a bunch of new bug reports[1], detailing bugs of the form
if ((rv = do_something(args) == APR_SUCCESS))
for
if ((rv = do_something(args)) == APR_SUCCESS)
Of course, that's a C classic, and can be a *** to spot.
We can avoid this by adopting an alternative coding style
that
On 10/2/06, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a bunch of new bug reports[1], detailing bugs of the form
if ((rv = do_something(args) == APR_SUCCESS))
for
if ((rv = do_something(args)) == APR_SUCCESS)
Of course, that's a C classic, and can be a *** to spot.
We can avoid this
On 10/2/06, Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/2/06, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a bunch of new bug reports[1], detailing bugs of the form
if ((rv = do_something(args) == APR_SUCCESS))
for
if ((rv = do_something(args)) == APR_SUCCESS)
Of course, that's a
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Or the even more readable:
rv = do_something(args);
if (rv == APR_SUCCESS) {
}
yuck! Think of all the harmless newlines you are senselessly wasting.
Our children will have to code with no newlines if we do not conserve
them today. Won't someone please think of the
On 10/02/2006 08:59 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 10/2/06, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a bunch of new bug reports[1], detailing bugs of the form
if ((rv = do_something(args) == APR_SUCCESS))
for
if ((rv = do_something(args)) == APR_SUCCESS)
Of course, that's a C
On 09/30/2006 01:04 PM, wrote:
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Sep 30 04:04:46 2006
New Revision: 451580
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=451580
Log:
Add alternative is_socket_connected implementation.
It works on win32 and linux for sure, so that's why
I put it inside the #ifdef.
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
If the intent is a total redesign of mod_disk_cache, ie you're not
interested in these patches at all, please say so and I would have not
wasted a lot of work on bending our patches to get something that works
when applying them one by one and then do QA on the thing.
When we started 3.3 development we discussed some of the deficiencies of
the current unit test framework, and the general idea of a new design.
After a couple of ill-fated attempts at a rewrite I think I have
something that fits the bill. At this point it's actually usable, and
the code is
On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the r-method_number is unknown the r-method
is unknown or corrupted as well. Log the method number
that was not recognized.
I can't tell from this snippet whether you are talking about the
HTTP method received or some bit of marshalled
Am Montag, den 02.10.2006, 22:39 +0200 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
if (((rc = apr_procattr_create(procattr, p)) == APR_SUCCESS)
((rc = apr_procattr_cmdtype_set(procattr,
APR_SHELLCMD_ENV)) == APR_SUCCESS)
((rc =
On Monday 02 October 2006 21:39, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
In general I agree with the above, but there are situations were the old
style really makes sense, e.g (from log_child in server/log.c):
if (((rc = apr_procattr_create(procattr, p)) == APR_SUCCESS)
((rc =
Am Montag, den 02.10.2006, 19:56 +0100 schrieb Nick Kew:
Can I suggest adopting this as a guideline for new code,
to avoid this kind of bug?
Is there an apache coding style guide?
Thx,
Joachim
On 10/02/2006 11:15 PM, Joachim Zobel wrote:
Am Montag, den 02.10.2006, 19:56 +0100 schrieb Nick Kew:
Can I suggest adopting this as a guideline for new code,
to avoid this kind of bug?
Is there an apache coding style guide?
Yes of course:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/styleguide.html
On 10/02/2006 11:12 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Monday 02 October 2006 21:39, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
In general I agree with the above, but there are situations were the old
style really makes sense, e.g (from log_child in server/log.c):
if (((rc = apr_procattr_create(procattr, p)) ==
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/26/2006 01:00 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:52:18AM +0200, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
This patch depends on mod_disk_cache LFS-aware config submitted
earlier and is for trunk.
It makes caching of large files possible on 32bit machines by:
*
On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
We have a bunch of new bug reports[1], detailing bugs of the form
if ((rv = do_something(args) == APR_SUCCESS))
for
if ((rv = do_something(args)) == APR_SUCCESS)
Of course, that's a C classic, and can be a *** to spot.
Huh, just turn on
On Monday 02 October 2006 23:31, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
We can avoid this by adopting an alternative coding style
that doesn't rely on confusing parentheses:
if (rv = do_something(args), rv == APR_SUCCESS)
Which nobody uses because it is so weird and unusual (speaking as a perl
On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Monday 02 October 2006 23:31, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
We can avoid this by adopting an alternative coding style
that doesn't rely on confusing parentheses:
if (rv = do_something(args), rv == APR_SUCCESS)
Which nobody uses because it is so
33 matches
Mail list logo
