+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 09:08:26AM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:47:24PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/10/2007 08:40 AM, Plüm wrote:
That was the goal of my diagnostic patch: Finding out if we have a pool
issue. Looks like we have. I guess the
* Paul Querna wrote:
+1 on concept.
Shouldn't we consider moving X-Sendfile into another module or the core?
It can be useful for regular CGIs or proxied stuff too..
We could put it into util_script or something. However, I'm not sure it'll
gain much. Every protocol must implement it
* Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Rather than call it X-Sendfile, can we perhaps adopt the generic
Script-Control header mechanism as outlined in CGI 1.2.
Sounds like an idea. I'd propose to support both then, though, because the
X-Sendfile mechanism already exists out there and is used. I don't
-Message d'origine-
De : Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : lundi 10 septembre 2007 12:02
À : dev@httpd.apache.org
Objet : Re: [PATCH] Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Nick Kew
Gesendet: Montag, 10.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:33:16 +0200
Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest I am still not convinced that the dynamic creation of
workers is a good idea at all.
Indeedie.
I believe I have addressed your concerns in a new patch posted for
PR#43308 in which I introduce
-Message d'origine-
De : Nick Kew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : lundi 17 septembre 2007 12:59
À : dev@httpd.apache.org
Objet : Re: [PATCH] Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:33:16 +0200
Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 17, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
Instead of limiting the number and thus creating them randomly
(according to what traffic happens to hit the server first),
That is part of, I think, both Rüdiger's and my concern.
The benefits are this are really really fuzzy when applied
to
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:29:44 +0200
Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not
really see why this should be done in another module, though.
How about:
1. It's a well-defined task (isn't it)?, and therefore a natural
candidate for a module in a modular server.
2.
Hi,
A customer asked me whether WIN32 binaries for the new 2.0.61 and
2.2.6 would be offered soonish by the ASF, and I don't really want
to send him to some other place offering binaries.
Are there plans to release them soon, or do we wait for 2.2.7 and
a settled fastcgi interface?
No hurry,
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:07:55AM -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
First thing I tired. The icon shows up.
If the icon type is NOT Microsoft's Resource Image type, perhaps a
link href=images/favicon.ico rel=shortcut icon type=image/png /
in the HTML head helps to help the browser identify the real
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:19:18 +0200
gromeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I get only requests for this directory, but for all types
of files. Do I have to filter out the extension on my own?
You do not have to filter out the extension but the handler name.
Add something like
if
Martin Kraemer wrote:
Hi,
A customer asked me whether WIN32 binaries for the new 2.0.61 and
2.2.6 would be offered soonish by the ASF, and I don't really want
to send him to some other place offering binaries.
Soonish. I'm still getting myself satisfied w.r.t. the binaries, have
been
hi!
i tried to use AP_HAVE_RELIABLE_PIPED_LOGS with a java program that
parses vhost logs and provides access to some log through a tcp/ip socket.
the problem is, that java cannot bind the socket cause it is already
bound to a process that launched a couple of seconds before the current one.
14 matches
Mail list logo
