Re: mod_ssl in trunk with OpenSSL 0.9.7 as a minimum requirement?
On Friday 05 August 2011, Kaspar Brand wrote: On 03.08.2011 19:08, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: My thought, it probably should be a set of commits; * Drop SSLC (first patch) * Drop OpenSSL 0.9.7 (second patch) * Drop ssl_toolkit_compat wrapper (third patch) * Warn on 0.9.7 and some 0.9.8 flavors (last patch) Ok, I'll try splitting it into more digestible pieces. Do you suggest committing them at the same time then, or possibly wait a few days in between (in case someone wants to build from the interim versions)? I don't think waiting is necessary. People can always check out an interim revision if they want.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.3.14 as beta
+1: OSX 10.6, 10.7 +1: Fed 14 +1: Ubuntu 10.04 On Aug 1, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: The tarballs for httpd-2.3.14 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please VOTE on whether to release these as Apache httpd-2.3.14, beta.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.3.14 as beta
On 8/1/2011 11:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: The tarballs for httpd-2.3.14 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please VOTE on whether to release these as Apache httpd-2.3.14, beta. +1
Re: mod_ssl in trunk with OpenSSL 0.9.7 as a minimum requirement?
On 8/5/2011 2:57 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: On Friday 05 August 2011, Kaspar Brand wrote: On 03.08.2011 19:08, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: My thought, it probably should be a set of commits; * Drop SSLC (first patch) * Drop OpenSSL 0.9.7 (second patch) * Drop ssl_toolkit_compat wrapper (third patch) * Warn on 0.9.7 and some 0.9.8 flavors (last patch) Ok, I'll try splitting it into more digestible pieces. Do you suggest committing them at the same time then, or possibly wait a few days in between (in case someone wants to build from the interim versions)? I don't think waiting is necessary. People can always check out an interim revision if they want. Precisely. This just makes it easier to follow the activity through svn history.
Re: id=51247 Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker status flag to only accept sticky session routes
On 5/25/2011 7:49 AM, Keith Mashinter wrote: I've reviewed the other patch https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841 and I had a similar idea, wondering if the route-only intent would happen if I tried to set lbfactor=0 but it only allowed values 1-100 and I worried about the complexity of changing the lbmethod formulae so using a separate status code seemed cleaner. It's a bit of a magic value, but an intuitive one I think. On the user surface lbfactor=0 requires less change than my ROUTE_ONLY to the configuration and balancer-manager but it needs some documentation to clarify the intent. I also attached a patch to https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247 for the trunk, but since I'm having trouble with the overall compile it's in theory. Please forgive compile issues, but I wanted to at least share the thought and will update when I can verify a compile and test run. Jim/Bill/others who have mentioned this; Just wanted to drop a friendly reminder that I'm waiting on direction between these two options. I can quickly roll a trunk or 2.2 patch for either of these if there is consensus for either mechanism. Both will allow for taking a server offline after bleeding traffic away by means of sending only existing sessions to said server. The difference is in approach: 48841Allowing zero as lbfactor tweaks the math a bit for the lbmethods 51247Adds a Route-Only radio box to balancer manager and a constant in the code to recognize the change -- -- Daniel Ruggeri
Re: id=51247 Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker status flag to only accept sticky session routes
Thanks for the reminder. I was about to send one myself to see if there was a chosen path. \|/- Keith Mashinter kmash...@yahoo.com From: Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Friday, August 5, 2011 6:55:04 PM Subject: Re: id=51247 Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker status flag to only accept sticky session routes On 5/25/2011 7:49 AM, Keith Mashinter wrote: I've reviewed the other patch https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841 and I had a similar idea, wondering if the route-only intent would happen if I tried to set lbfactor=0 but it only allowed values 1-100 and I worried about the complexity of changing the lbmethod formulae so using a separate status code seemed cleaner. It's a bit of a magic value, but an intuitive one I think. On the user surface lbfactor=0 requires less change than my ROUTE_ONLY to the configuration and balancer-manager but it needs some documentation to clarify the intent. I also attached a patch to https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247 for the trunk, but since I'm having trouble with the overall compile it's in theory. Please forgive compile issues, but I wanted to at least share the thought and will update when I can verify a compile and test run. Jim/Bill/others who have mentioned this; Just wanted to drop a friendly reminder that I'm waiting on direction between these two options. I can quickly roll a trunk or 2.2 patch for either of these if there is consensus for either mechanism. Both will allow for taking a server offline after bleeding traffic away by means of sending only existing sessions to said server. The difference is in approach: 48841 Allowing zero as lbfactor tweaks the math a bit for the lbmethods 51247 Adds a Route-Only radio box to balancer manager and a constant in the code to recognize the change -- -- Daniel Ruggeri
