Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Mike Rumph]

On 2/22/2016 3:40 PM, Luca Toscano wrote:



2016-02-21 15:55 GMT+01:00 Luca Toscano >:



Would it be worth to add a small banner on each documentation page
for 2.2 stating something like:


Patch attached with a very high level idea of what I would like to do. 
I have modified the "retired" banner for 2.2 to suggest the readers a 
migration to 2.4. Wording might not be correct but please let me know 
if you like the idea!


Luca


Hello Luca,

The idea looks good to me.

Here is a first look nitpick at one of the sentences:

"The migration of the configuration files will require a bit of effort 
but it will definitely worth it in term of performances and long term 
maintainability."


==>

The migration of the configuration files will require a bit of effort*,*  but 
it will definitely*be*  worth it in*terms*  of*performance*  and long term 
maintainability.

Thanks,

Mike

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Luca Toscano]

2016-02-21 15:55 GMT+01:00 Luca Toscano :
>
>
> Would it be worth to add a small banner on each documentation page for 2.2
> stating something like:
>

Patch attached with a very high level idea of what I would like to do. I
have modified the "retired" banner for 2.2 to suggest the readers a
migration to 2.4. Wording might not be correct but please let me know if
you like the idea!

Luca
Index: style/manual.en.xsl
===
--- style/manual.en.xsl (revision 1731196)
+++ style/manual.en.xsl (working copy)
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
 ISO-8859-1
 
 
-
+
 
 
 
Index: style/xsl/common.xsl
===
--- style/xsl/common.xsl(revision 1731196)
+++ style/xsl/common.xsl(working copy)
@@ -317,11 +317,8 @@
 
 
 
-
-http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/;>
-
-
-
+http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/upgrading.html;>
+
 
 
 
Index: style/lang/en.xml
===
--- style/lang/en.xml   (revision 1731196)
+++ style/lang/en.xml   (working copy)
@@ -151,10 +151,11 @@
 
 Please note
 
-This document refers to the 2.0 version of 
Apache httpd, which is no longer maintained. Upgrade, and 
refer to the current version of httpd instead, documented at:
+This document refers to the 2.2 version of 
Apache httpd that is still maintained but not actively developed. Please 
upgrade to the latest version of Apache httpd to get performance improvements 
and new features. The migration of the configuration files will require a bit 
of effort but it will definitely worth it in term of performances and long term 
maintainability.
+
 
-Current release version of Apache HTTP 
Server documentation
-You may follow this link 
to go to the current version of this document.
+Upgrading to the latest version of 
Apache httpd
+You may follow this link 
to go to the latest version of this document.
 
 
 

Re: svn commit: r1729495 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: ./ modules/aaa/ modules/arch/win32/ modules/core/ modules/examples/ modules/filters/ modules/http2/ modules/loggers/ modules/lua/ modul

[Marion & Christophe JAILLET]

Le 22/02/2016 22:21, Rainer Jung a écrit :

Am 15.02.2016 um 07:28 schrieb Christophe JAILLET:

Le 10/02/2016 00:09, rj...@apache.org a écrit :

Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/mpm/event/event.c
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/mpm/event/event.c?rev=1729495=1729494=1729495=diff 



@@ -3245,7 +3247,7 @@ static int event_check_config(apr_pool_t
  ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_STARTUP,
0, NULL, APLOGNO(00497)
   "WARNING: ServerLimit of %d exceeds
compile-time "
   "limit of", server_limit);
-ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_STARTUP,
0, NULL,
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_STARTUP,
0, NULL, APLOGNO(03105)
   " %d servers, decreasing to %d.",
   MAX_SERVER_LIMIT, MAX_SERVER_LIMIT);
  } else {



Should we really add an APLOGNO here? It looks like a multi-line log
message.

This is the same for APLOGNO(03105) --> APLOGNO(03116) in event.c.
Similar code can also be found in other MPM.


You are right. I wonder whether we actually want to reformat those 
startup messages to single (long) line messages. What do you (and 
others) think?


Regards,

Rainer


+1, it is what I had in mind to clarify and avoid false positive when 
using coccinelle.


CJ

Re: svn commit: r1729495 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: ./ modules/aaa/ modules/arch/win32/ modules/core/ modules/examples/ modules/filters/ modules/http2/ modules/loggers/ modules/lua/ modul

[William A Rowe Jr]

This looks busted anyways, the author broke the atomic behavior of log
messages :(
Fix the underlying bug.

Each AP# string should have exactly one string value, for later
internationalization.
There is no way, without the APLOGNO, that this second message can be
translated.

Cheers,

Bill

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Rainer Jung 
wrote:

> Am 15.02.2016 um 07:28 schrieb Christophe JAILLET:
>
>> Le 10/02/2016 00:09, rj...@apache.org a écrit :
>>
>>> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/mpm/event/event.c
>>> URL:
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/mpm/event/event.c?rev=1729495=1729494=1729495=diff
>>>
>>> @@ -3245,7 +3247,7 @@ static int event_check_config(apr_pool_t
>>>   ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_STARTUP,
>>> 0, NULL, APLOGNO(00497)
>>>"WARNING: ServerLimit of %d exceeds
>>> compile-time "
>>>"limit of", server_limit);
>>> -ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_STARTUP,
>>> 0, NULL,
>>> +ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_STARTUP,
>>> 0, NULL, APLOGNO(03105)
>>>" %d servers, decreasing to %d.",
>>>MAX_SERVER_LIMIT, MAX_SERVER_LIMIT);
>>>   } else {
>>>
>>>
>> Should we really add an APLOGNO here? It looks like a multi-line log
>> message.
>>
>> This is the same for APLOGNO(03105) --> APLOGNO(03116) in event.c.
>> Similar code can also be found in other MPM.
>>
>
> You are right. I wonder whether we actually want to reformat those startup
> messages to single (long) line messages. What do you (and others) think?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
>

Re: svn commit: r1729495 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: ./ modules/aaa/ modules/arch/win32/ modules/core/ modules/examples/ modules/filters/ modules/http2/ modules/loggers/ modules/lua/ modul

[Rainer Jung]

Am 15.02.2016 um 07:28 schrieb Christophe JAILLET:

Le 10/02/2016 00:09, rj...@apache.org a écrit :

Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/mpm/event/event.c
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/mpm/event/event.c?rev=1729495=1729494=1729495=diff

@@ -3245,7 +3247,7 @@ static int event_check_config(apr_pool_t
  ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_STARTUP,
0, NULL, APLOGNO(00497)
   "WARNING: ServerLimit of %d exceeds
compile-time "
   "limit of", server_limit);
-ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_STARTUP,
0, NULL,
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_STARTUP,
0, NULL, APLOGNO(03105)
   " %d servers, decreasing to %d.",
   MAX_SERVER_LIMIT, MAX_SERVER_LIMIT);
  } else {



Should we really add an APLOGNO here? It looks like a multi-line log
message.

This is the same for APLOGNO(03105) --> APLOGNO(03116) in event.c.
Similar code can also be found in other MPM.


You are right. I wonder whether we actually want to reformat those 
startup messages to single (long) line messages. What do you (and 
others) think?


Regards,

Rainer

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Kurt Newman]

If it’s any consolation, cPanel changed our default web server from 2.2 to 2.4 
on May 2015.  We still see a large percentage of customers using 2.2 though.

> On Feb 15, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Eric Covener  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Eric Covener  wrote:
>> I stumbled on this link that Bill had shared previously and went back
>> to look at previous snapshots:
>> 
>> March 2014: 2.0: 4.1%, 2.4: 4.3%
>> 
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20140327151641/http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
>> 
>> Today (March 2015) : 2.0: 2.8%, 2.4: 16.4%
>> 
>> http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
> 
> Just happened to search for this two weeks earlier than last year.
> 2.0: 1.9%, 2.2: 66.8%, 2.4: 31.3%
> 
> -- 
> Eric Covener
> cove...@gmail.com



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: svn commit: r1731594 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/docs/manual/mod: mod_proxy_balancer.xml mod_proxy_wstunnel.xml

[Luca Toscano]

Hi Jim!

2016-02-22 14:19 GMT+01:00 Jim Jagielski :

> Aww... I like using 'automagically'... but maybe that's
> too old school :)
>

/me feels terribly sorry for it, I do like configuration magic too :(

There was a comment about it (among the other things) and I thought to be
as strict as possible to be on the safe side. As I told to Eric Covener
several times, you can revoke temporarily my account as punishment
for outrageous behavior if you wish :)

Luca

Re: svn commit: r1731594 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/docs/manual/mod: mod_proxy_balancer.xml mod_proxy_wstunnel.xml

[Jim Jagielski]

Aww... I like using 'automagically'... but maybe that's
too old school :)

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 2:18 AM, elu...@apache.org wrote:
> 
> Author: elukey
> Date: Mon Feb 22 07:18:19 2016
> New Revision: 1731594
> 
> ==
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/docs/manual/mod/mod_proxy_wstunnel.xml 
> (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/docs/manual/mod/mod_proxy_wstunnel.xml Mon Feb 
> 22 07:18:19 2016
> @@ -34,21 +34,23 @@
> This module requires the service of > mod_proxy. It provides support for the tunnelling of web
> socket connections to a backend websockets server. The connection
> -is automagically upgraded to a websocket connection:
> +is automatically upgraded to a websocket connection:
>