Dear all
i'm trying to code a custom module that will implement some logic this
is the concept of the module:
*
/*
* some stuff...
*/
if(condition){
/*return a custom result*/
return OK;
}else{
/*forward the request to another server*/
r-filename
Ok, it wasn't clear to me to return DECLINED to look for other
handlers, and also wasn't clear the possibility to specify an order.
Now it works, thanks.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Sorin Manolache sor...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-08-17 16:25, nik600 wrote:
Dear all
i'm trying to code a
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 08:36:31PM +0200, Kaspar Brand wrote:
I wonder if we should add support for module-specific CFLAGS etc.,
which would always appear before the EXTRA_XXX stuff in the compile
and link commands, i.e. in rules.mk we would have:
ALL_CFLAGS = $(MOD_CFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS)
Daniel,
Am 17.08.2012 11:41, schrieb humbed...@apache.org:
Author: humbedooh
Date: Fri Aug 17 09:41:46 2012
New Revision: 1374185
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1374185view=rev
Log: (empty)
can you please also provide a log entry?
Gün.
On 08/17/2012 12:19 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Daniel,
Am 17.08.2012 11:41, schrieb humbed...@apache.org:
Author: humbedooh
Date: Fri Aug 17 09:41:46 2012
New Revision: 1374185
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1374185view=rev
Log: (empty)
can you please also provide a log entry?
Please change the svn:log revision property for this revision such that your
comment is documented in Subversion properly.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Gruno
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:25 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1374185 - in
- Original Message -
Please change the svn:log revision property for this revision such
that your comment is documented in Subversion properly.
Because it's a FAQ ;)
http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#change-log-msg
Regards
Rüdiger
-Original Message-
From: Daniel
On 08/17/2012 12:34 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
- Original Message -
Please change the svn:log revision property for this revision such
that your comment is documented in Subversion properly.
Because it's a FAQ ;)
http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#change-log-msg
Thanks, Igor
On 17.08.2012 12:38, Daniel Gruno wrote:
On 08/17/2012 12:34 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
- Original Message -
Please change the svn:log revision property for this revision such
that your comment is documented in Subversion properly.
Because it's a FAQ ;)
Subject kinda sez it all.
Hi Joe,
as you are apparently not subscribed to Bugzilla PR 51489, I am
answering to your comment on that PR via mail. Please apologize in case
you now got my answer twice.
On 08/17/2012 03:56 PM CEST +02:00, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51489
Actually, due to same this just in news, I will likely hold
off.
On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Subject kinda sez it all.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:53:54PM +0200, Micha Lenk wrote:
as you are apparently not subscribed to Bugzilla PR 51489, I am
answering to your comment on that PR via mail. Please apologize in case
you now got my answer twice.
Thanks Micha, I get the bug mail via bugs@, but no problem. I've
Hi Joe,
On 08/17/2012 05:00 PM CEST +02:00, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:53:54PM +0200, Micha Lenk wrote:
as you are apparently not subscribed to Bugzilla PR 51489, I am
answering to your comment on that PR via mail. Please apologize in case
you now got my answer twice.
TR happening now!
On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Actually, due to same this just in news, I will likely hold
off.
On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Subject kinda sez it all.
Folks, since enabling and disabling tls v1.1 and v1.2 proved important in
mitigating the last openssl vulnerability, I'd really like to get this fix in.
Could you please review my revisions and commentary, especially sf and kbrand
who had raised the issues to address, and vote?
It wasn't clean
This list is frankly too long to consider for a TR today, which will happen
later this afternoon or early evening as I mentioned several days ago.
Rainer, can you draw our attention to the backports most critical to closing
any security issues present in 2.2, so we can give those proper review?
The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.3 can be found
at the usual place:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.3 GA.
NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
easier for the tester. They will not be,
Following up: I've been pretty successful using apr_memcache so far. The
performance is roughly on par with a file-cache running on a tmpfs
partition, but of course it adds network scalability. I'd encourage anyone
wanting to integrate memcached into Apache modules to give it a try. It
might
Does the event MPM now:
1. Work on Windows?
2. Work with HTTPS?
When both are true 2.4.x will become very interesting. Until then, not
so much over 2.2.x.
On 8/17/2012 12:34 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.3 can be found
at the usual place:
I guess you mean WINMPM works with SSL, Event never worked on native Windows,
neither on 2.2 nor on 2.4.
But the SSL with 2.4 and the WinMPM is now fixed. Thanks to Jeff for this.
Regards
Rüdiger
From: Jess Holle [mailto:je...@ptc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 17,
In the Announcement you'll see:
NOTE to Windows users: The issues with AcceptFilter None replacing
Win32DisableAcceptEx appears to have resolved starting with version
2.4.3 make Apache httpd 2.4.x suitable for Windows servers.
NOTE: The event MPM is a *nix mpm and has never
On 17.08.2012 19:22, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
This list is frankly too long to consider for a TR today, which will happen
later this afternoon or early evening as I mentioned several days ago.
Rainer, can you draw our attention to the backports most critical to closing
any security issues
The fact that there is no event MPM equivalent for Windows is a huge gap
for 2.4.x.
Given the large percentage of our downstream customers using Windows
there's not a huge motivation to move to 2.4.x.
Moreover, it's my understanding that the event MPM falls back to
behaving like the worker
I am curious how the number of downstream customers being Windows effects
anything on the server side...
On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote:
The fact that there is no event MPM equivalent for Windows is a huge gap for
2.4.x.
Given the large percentage of our
[Not sure what happened but this didn't appear to make it to the list...]
Folks, since enabling and disabling tls v1.1 and v1.2 proved important with
mitigating the last openssl vulnerability, I'd really like to get this fix in
and consider it a showstopper.
On 8/17/2012 1:10 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 17.08.2012 19:22, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
This list is frankly too long to consider for a TR today, which will happen
later this afternoon or early evening as I mentioned several days ago.
Rainer, can you draw our attention to the backports most
Downstream customers in my case means customers that will deploy
Apache and our products on their own servers. In a great many cases
these servers run Windows.
The clients in most cases are Windows too, but that's a different matter
entirely.
On 8/17/2012 3:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I
28 matches
Mail list logo
