On May 21, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Why don't you just add an ignore of cache-control on requests from
those stupid download managers? A simple BrowserMatch should do.
I am not quite sure what you mean by this. AFAIK you cannot set
CacheIgnoreCacheControl based on env variables.
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
At first glance, doing this I think will break RFC2616 compliance, and if
it does break RFC compliance then I think it should not be default
behaviour. However if it does solve a real problem for admins, then
having
a directive allowing the admin to enable this behavio
On 05/21/2007 11:29 PM, Stuart Children wrote:
>
> It would be nice to have the connection timeout as a proper directive -
> rather than only as a parameter to ProxyPass - so that people enabling
> mod_proxy via other mechanisms can set it. Also so that you can set a
This issue is addressed on
On 05/21/2007 02:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The logic should be:
>
>1. If a per-worker value is set, use that.
>2. If not, then if a ProxyTimeout value is set, use that.
>3. Otherwise, use Timeout
>
> +1 on fixing that :)
This sounds sane and I plan to do this, but what about t
Brian Rectanus wrote:
Comments on the idea of this?
I was just going to point out that it's definitely useful being able to
specify separate connection and actual request timeouts. From a quick
look at your diff, you already have this in mind. :)
An example: with a reverse proxy, you might
On 05/21/2007 09:07 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Why don't you just add an ignore of cache-control on requests from
> those stupid download managers? A simple BrowserMatch should do.
I am not quite sure what you mean by this. AFAIK you cannot set
CacheIgnoreCacheControl based on env variabl
On 5/5/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 05.05.2007 04:25, Brian Hayward wrote:
> BTW, I did test my patch when 1 host was down in a balancer
> configuration. It still seemed to work well.
I would think so. My point was more about that with this setting the
response times of yo
On May 21, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Does anybody see a problem with changing mod_cache to not update
the stored headers when the request has max-age=0, the body turns
out not to be stale and the on-disk header hasn't expired?
Yes, the problem is that it will break content m
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Graham Leggett wrote:
Since max-age=0 requests can't be fulfilled without revalidating the
object they don't benefit from this header rewrite, and requests with
max-age!=0 that can benefit from the header rewrite won't be affected
by this change.
Am I making sense? Have I m
On 5/21/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 19, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 05/19/2007 04:07 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On 5/18/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Currently ProxyTimeout does not work as documented as the default
>>> value i
On Mon, May 21, 2007 4:49 pm, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
> Does anybody see a problem with changing mod_cache to not update the
> stored headers when the request has max-age=0, the body turns out
> not to be stale and the on-disk header hasn't expired?
>
> The rationale behind this is that there are
Does anybody see a problem with changing mod_cache to not update the
stored headers when the request has max-age=0, the body turns out
not to be stale and the on-disk header hasn't expired?
The rationale behind this is that there are hordes of stupid "download
managers" that always issue thi
Here's an updated one that adds the init stuff and license info.
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
conn-server-mod.diff
Description: Binary data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi group!
I wanted my module to announce itself on the Server: response header, so I
checked mod_ssl's source,
found ap_add_version_component(), and some googling provided the 1.3 version of
the
ap_add_version_component() call manual.
It had only
On 5/17/07 10:26 PM, "Garrett Rooney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not a fan of the way the pools and hash tables are lazily
> initialized, as it isn't thread safe and one of the nice things about
> mod_wombat is its thread safety. Perhaps something that's initialized
> during server startup
On May 18, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 5/18/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, because rv == !OK, wouldn't the CACHE_REMOVE_URL filter hit?
> That should do the dirty deed, no? -- justin
No, as the CACHE_REMOVE_URL filter will only work if there is a
cach
On May 19, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/19/2007 04:07 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On 5/18/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Currently ProxyTimeout does not work as documented as the default
value is not
300 secs, but the Timeout setting of the server. The question
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 5/17/07, Niklas Edmundsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has there been any progress on PR41230? I submitted a patch that at
least seems to improve the situation that now seems to have seen some
testing by others as well.
As I have stated before,
18 matches
Mail list logo
