With the last mod_include fix, can we bump the tag on mod_include and go beta?
Bill
an
>
> On Thursday 23 August 2001 08:09, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > With the last mod_include fix, can we bump the tag on mod_include and go
> > beta?
> >
> > Bill
>
> --
>
> __
> Ryan Bloo
What is the failure? And why was this not broken in Apache 1.3? The change seems
reasonable but curious if there is a better way to fix this.
Bill
> On Thu, 2001-08-23 at 08:09, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > With the last mod_include fix, can we bump the tag on mod_include and go beta?
>
>
> What in the world is apr_uri_components? Should I be searching in
> files other than '*.c' and '*.h' to find it? gcc can't find it
> either.
>
> make[3]: Entering directory `/home/trawick/apache/httpd-2.0/modules/experimental'
It's in apr-util/include/apr_uri.h
Unless it has been moved/r
-
> On Thu, 2001-08-23 at 11:07, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> apr_uri_components got renamed to apr_uri_t
>
Ahh... I was developing off a slightly stale development tree. Updating now...
Bill
> I'm -1 on calling any Win32 release a beta without those eliminated
I'm okay with only declaring beta on Unix/Linux.
Bill
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> > > I'm -1 on calling any Win32 release a beta without those eliminated
> >
> > I'm okay with only declaring beta on Unix/Linux.
>
> I don't think I am. Let's get this taken care of. :-/
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> > > I don't think I am. Let's get this taken care of. :-/
> >
> > Why? Most serious Apache users run Unix/Linux. And thread support
> > under Unix/Linux is one of the main features of Apache 2.0. Obvious
Dies really quick... Any thoughts as to what the problem might be? This after a fresh
checkout of HEAD.
Configuration: libapr - Win32 Debug
Performing Custom Build Step on .\include\apr.hw
Created apr.h from apr.hw
Creating Version Resource
Error executing
HEAD is compiling now. Somehow managed to get the wrong awk.exe wrapping the wrong
gawk.exe. I must have extracted right in the middle of your last update. All seems to
be
working now.
Bill
> Is awk installed?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bill Stoddard" &l
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:53:03PM -0400, Greg Ames wrote:
> >...
> > However, the bugs are getting more subtle and take longer to debug and
> > fix. With our current process, a great deal of new code can be
> > committed while the gnarly problem in last tarball is being debugged.
> > Why woul
> # httpd - temporary wrapper script for .libs/httpd
> # Generated by ltmain.sh - GNU libtool 1.3.4-freebsd-ports (1.385.2.196
> 1999/12/07 21:47:57)
> #
> # The httpd program cannot be directly executed until all the libtool
> # libraries that it depends on are installed.
> #
Huh? Okay, I confe
Why are we spending time trying to optimize pools when we haven't eliminated the
malloc/frees in the bucket brigade calls? The miniscule performance improvements
you -might- get optimizing pools will be completely obscured by the overhead of the
malloc/frees.
Bill
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>
> > Why are we spending time trying to optimize pools when we haven't
> > eliminated the
> > malloc/frees in the bucket brigade calls? The miniscule
> > performance improvements
> > you -might- get optimizing pools will be completely obscured by
> > the overhead of the
> > malloc/frees.
> >
> >
>
> I have a problem with the original question though. I don't understand why
> anybody is trying to state that if people want to improve the pools code, they
> shouldn't, because we use malloc in one place in the code. People are
> free to work on whatever they want.
I am not being philosophi
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 11:43:19PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > wrowe 01/08/25 16:43:19
> >
> > Modified:.CHANGES
> >include http_request.h
> >modules/http http_core.c http_protocol.c http_request.c
> > mod_core
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 11:43:19PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > wrowe 01/08/25 16:43:19
> >
> > Modified:.CHANGES
> >include http_request.h
> >modules/http http_core.c http_protocol.c http_request.c
> > mod_cor
> From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:54 AM
>
>
> > Just out of curiosity, would it be easier if, for 2.0, we fixed the
> > original bogosity of location walk by running it first, before directory
> > walk, and simply forbid its use within .htaccess? Tha
> From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 11:48 AM
>
>
> > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 11:43:19PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > wrowe 01/08/25 16:43:19
> > > >
> > > > Mod
> > >
> > > It does? Then you need to find a clue. quick_handler should have been
> > > axed from the outset, and now that this handler allows a non-filesystem
> > > request to be handled properly, it really should be gone.
> >
> > map_to_storage is definitely not the same as quick_handler. But
> > I think what Roy is suggesting is that we eliminate the second
> > LocationWalk. I am a tentative +1 on his suggestion. And it doesn't make
> > sense to allow Location directives in .htaccess files (use of Location
> > implies we are not serving out of the file system anyway). I don't see any
> > > map_to_storage is definitely not the same as quick_handler. But
> > > quick_handler does have a use so it stays in.
> >
> > Actually, they are closer than you might think. quick_handler's purpose is to
>allow
> > requests to be served as quickly as possible. It skips a lot of phases of th
> At 11:00 AM -0400 8/28/01, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >
> >The order it checks for (at the moment :) ) is sysvsem, flock, pthread
> >mutex, fcntl. The last match wins (i.e., fcntl is preferred). This
> >can be overridden on a platform basis in apr_hints.m4 by setting the
> >variable apr_lock_metho
> On Wednesday 29 August 2001 21:18, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 09:17:32PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2001-08-29 at 20:22, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > > Should we be at 2.0.26-dev in ap_release.h? -- justin
> > >
> > > should we re-roll&tar 26 (which wou
> At 4:29 PM -0400 8/29/01, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >
> >I still don't grok why SingleListen is needed. In fact, it seems down right
>dangerous
and
> >I am -1 on this directive until someone bashes me with a clue stick :-)
>
> I agree that it's dangerous.
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on Linux and also AS/400 (yes there is Unix hackers
> using that exotic OS)
>
> Since OS/400 release V5R1, Apache 2.0 is included :)))
> Reported as Apache 2.0.18 (beta ?)
>
> It's very pleasant to reuse httpd.conf on AS/400.
>
> Did you know if it the same code base and if t
> Here's the specific issue I'm trying to address with SingleListen, and
> the entire mutex-at-runtime... I build one version of Apache and
> implement it on my suite of servers, say all are running OS Foo 3.4.
> Now some of those servers are single CPU, some are multiCPU. I'd like
> to avoid havi
> On Thursday 30 August 2001 08:09, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > > We shouldn't do either. If you go back and read the original thread,
> > > > > one of the general rules of this release strategy is that we don't
> > > > > release every day. We just ro
> Certainly converting mod_mime
> to a hash makes the other key whiner of "we've got to get this out the door" look
> equally foolish. That patch ate a week of several people's lives. I hope the
> performance improvement proves worth it.
Heh, heh. You already know the answer to that question.
> From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:55 AM
>
>
> > Not really. The process Cliff and I outlined is really aimed at getting -a- stable
release
> > available. The process will take at least 2 days to go through
> On Thu, 2001-08-30 at 18:12, Greg Ames wrote:
> > Marc Slemko wrote:
> > >
> > > On 22 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > gregames01/08/22 16:12:24
> > > >
> > > > Modified:modules/filters mod_include.c
> > > > Log:
> > > > get rid of nuisance log messages due to su
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Make CACHE_IN and CACHE_CONDITIONAL AP_FTYPE_CONTENT filters. Comtemplating
> > making a new filter type, AP_FTYPE_CACHE. We need to run CACHE_IN immediately
> > after the handlers are done and before we run the content through any filters.
>
> In the orig
> On Friday 31 August 2001 11:48, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > How do you handle things like byterange requests if CACHE_IN is a network
> > > filter? The byterange filter will filter out all but the range requested
> > > so the CAC
> > >
> > > My own opinion is that the cache should be the last content filter run.
>Basically,
> > > it should probably be specified as the first HTTP_HEADER filter type.
>
> not necessarily.
> we have a situation where we need to uniquly modify outgoing HTML to
> insert ads and tracking things
directory_walk, file_walk and the second call to location_walk occur after the
translate_name hook. Last time I looked, this was still the case in 2.0.x. So, config
directives accessed by the translation hook can only be server wide.
Bill
> Are per-dir configs available before the uri->filename
I agree with this. Our current AP_FTYPE_* classifications is not granular enough to
support this but that is easily fixed. Patch on the way...
Bill
> A transfer encoding isn't a byterange or chunking output. It's a compression
> scheme, and that we _want_ to cache, to avoid the cpu overhead.
>
> I agree with this. Our current AP_FTYPE_* classifications is not granular enough to
> support this but that is easily fixed. Patch on the way...
>
Err or not. Jeff convinced me that it was premature to add additional AP_FTYPES.
For
now, everything FTYPE_HEADERS (cache, content encoding,
>
> just to add my 2c to the picture.
> I dont see why the cache-filter could not live anywhere in the filter chain
> it could sit just after the handler (where it could cache a report generator)
> which would then feed into php/include
>
> it could sit after php/include and possibly after the gzi
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > jim 01/09/04 11:15:16
> >
> > Modified:src CHANGES PORTING
> >src/include ap_config.h http_main.h
> >src/lib/sdbm sdbm_lock.c
> >src/main http_core.c http_main.c
> >src/modules/sta
>
> One phenomenon in the truss data looks a bit strange:
> http://webperf.org/a2/v25/truss.2001_01_04
>
> The server appears to be logging the request (the write to file descriptor
> 4) before closing its connection to the client (the shutdown that
> follows the
> write). For a non-keepalive r
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> >>One phenomenon in the truss data looks a bit strange:
> >> http://webperf.org/a2/v25/truss.2001_01_04
> >>
> >>The server appears to be logging the request (the write to file descriptor
> >>4) before clos
+1 on the veto :-)
I am a strong +1 in favor of making this a subproject and probably rolling it into a
post
2.0 release. The presence of mod_gz in the core now -will- impact folks who are
working on
stabilizing the server.
Bill
> * On 2001-09-06 at 11:51,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTE
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > We have no control over APR. APR will not make a release just because
> > the web server wants it to. Apache needs to either use an already released
> > APR, or it needs to specify a date/time to check out APR.
>
> We have no control over libc either, and yet we use th
> On Thursday 06 September 2001 09:36, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2001-09-06 at 08:12, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > > I have some big problems with the way that location walk and
> > > > > directory walk work now, BTW, because if I write a module that
> > > > > doesn't get pages from the filesys
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> > I am a strong +1 in favor of making this a subproject and probably rolling it into
>a
post
> > 2.0 release. The presence of mod_gz in the core now -will- impact folks who are
working on
> > stabilizing the server.
>
> What abo
I'd like to tag and roll Apache 1.3.21. Anyone have anything they would like to get in
first? I believe there are some proxy patches and some misc fixes to 1.3.20 and that's
about it. Not in any hurry but I would like to do it sometime in the next few weeks.
Opinions?
Bill
> I'd like to tag and roll Apache 1.3.21. Anyone have anything they would like to get
>in
> first? I believe there are some proxy patches and some misc fixes to 1.3.20 and
>that's
> about it.
.. and the AcceptMutex directive, which was my motivation for the T&R to begin with...
> Not in any h
> On Monday 10 September 2001 10:11, Farag, Hany M (Hany) wrote:
>
> No. those functions were useful in 1.3, because we used SIGALRM to
> deal with timeouts. In 2.0, we use the timeout that we pass to the I/O
> functions to expire a function call. There is no way to cancel those
> timeouts.
>
- >
> > I keep on pointing out problems with map_to_storage because I keep on
> > running into them when I am handling reverse proxying (a major component
> > in our web design)
>
> Test cases are great :) It's good to see a module (mod_proxy) immediately reap
> the benefits of this patch.
Browser hits an Apache server through a firewall with a request like this:
GET /manual HTTP/1.0
manual is a directory which results in the server issuing a redirect thusly
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:37:22 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix)
Location: http://origin_ser
My opinion is that we should support this patch (in concept, not reviewed in detail) or
not support Linux 2.0 with glibc 2.0.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 1:53 PM
Subject: [PATCH] Switch b
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > I'm +1 on creating httpd-rollup, and -0.5 on putting proxy back in.
>
> Ok - first question - what do we call the rollup release:
>
> o Option A: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz
>
> Combines httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util, httpd-proxy and
> httpd-ldap and produces an apache rollup
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 06:34:11AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > jwoolley01/09/18 23:34:11
> >
> > Modified:server/mpm/worker worker.c
> > Log:
> > I was kinda hoping those (void)some_function() and (request_rec *)NULL
> > casts would go away before this committed, but al
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Switch back to SIGUSR1 for graceful restarts on all platforms that
> > support it. This defines a symbol called AP_SIG_GRACEFUL in
> > ap_config_auto.h which will have the appropriate signal value. All
> > direct references to SIGWINCH have been replaced with
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >
> > It's obvious we are not using the return either way.
>
> But without the cast, someone not conversant with the details
> won't know it normally returns a value; they might think it's
> a void function.
>
> > Less
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:53:47PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > Why is calling it proc_pthread silly? We are talking about a pthread based
> > process lock. Personally, I think Apache 1.3 should be changed, especially
> > since it hasn't been released yet. My concern is that calling it a pthr
but at least as strong as arguments to use proc_thread.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Standar
Ooops! And the list grows with each post we make :-)
proc_pthread, proc_pthread, proc_pthread...
Bill
> On Wednesday 19 September 2001 09:27 pm, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > proc_thread doesn't tell me anything. If I google for proc_thread, I get no
> > hits. If I google pth
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >
> > -StartServers 3
> > -MaxClients 8
> > -MinSpareThreads 5
> > +StartServers 2
> > +MaxClients 150
> > +MinSpareThreads 25
> > MaxSpareThreads 75
> > Threa
Just an FYI... I was an advocate of pretty much your earlier suggestion (the thing that
handles a request is a 'server'). That was shot down (forget by who). I actually prefer
'server'. FWIW :-)
Bill
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Stoddard [mail
Now for something completely different... I am just throwing out some stream of
consciencness thoughts.
Definition - "Server" is a "process". Could replace all occurences of "Server" below
with
"Process" or "Child". No explicit use of a term equivakent to "the thing that handles a
request".
Sta
Has this ever been discussed before? Apache httpd 1.3 can call the child_exit hooks
out
of a SIGUSR1 handler, which seems to be VERY bad mojo. Modules that register child_exit
hooks more likely than not make calls into libc that are just not safe to make out of a
signal handler. I am seeing a se
> On Friday 21 September 2001 01:18 pm, Greg Ames wrote:
>
> > * Looking thru the commit logs, I see hundreds of lines of changes going
> > in since 2.0.25, when I believe it worked. I don't think any of these
> > changes have simplified the module, and it was pretty complex to start
> > with.
I am planning on tagging Apache 1.3.21 this evening (USA Eastern Time) ~ 12 hours from
now. I will defer the roll for 24 hours to give a bit of time to smoke test the tag.
Regards,
Bill
Holding off the tag till later this week. The AcceptMutex stuff is important enough to
go
out on its own merits, so I plan to tag no later than Friday evening ready or not :-).
In
the meantime, I am working on some of the mod_mime/mod_negotiation back ports of Mr.
Rowe's work.
Bill
- Origi
Yep, you are right. My head is a bit fuzzy recovering from some flu like bug.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/os/
We (and third party modules) call lots of stuff in clean_child_exit that is not safe to
call from a signal handler. Dean has pointed this out many times. We need to eliminate
this particular architectural flaw in 2.0.
BTW, Jeff is working on a patch to 1.3 that will help out some though I do not
+1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > add the ProxyHTTPOverrideReturnedErrors directive documentation
>
> Would anyone object to me changing this to "ProxyErrorOverride" - the
> above directive is *way* too long...
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
> -
> [EMAI
> dean gaudet wrote:
>
> >your numbers look about in the right ballpark for the top performance
> >you'll get from apache on that hardware. the apache architecture has some
> >fundamental performance issues... consider using TUX instead (it's
> >included with redhat 7.1) or X15 (which is also li
Bill,
I didn't have any time to look at this over the weekend, but as of Friday afternoon, I
have not been able to recreate this problem in Apache 1.3.
Bill
> Greg, this isn't an error, and the early "Success" was a catastrophic
> failure for many cases.
>
> If a user of 1.3/earlier 2.0 copied i
Testing in 1.3...
> It isn't a problem, 1.3 mime/negotation is subtely broken, so of course
> this works in 1.3.
>
> OK ... let's start from page one.
>
> Two files in a directory:
>
> index.html.en1590 bytes
> index.html.fr1632 bytes
>
> if the user's Accept-Language header is simply en,
Still working on recreating this...
> > The sub_req for index.html.temp is destroyed because
> > sub_req->content_type == NULL, which looks correct to me.
>
> Try index.html.en.temp - which may have been what I was thinking of.
.temp is the last extension inspected by mod_mime. If temp is not in
> Still working on recreating this...
>
> > > The sub_req for index.html.temp is destroyed because
> > > sub_req->content_type == NULL, which looks correct to me.
> >
> > Try index.html.en.temp - which may have been what I was thinking of.
>
> .temp is the last extension inspected by mod_mime. I
>
> Include conf/httpd-ssl.conf
>
>
> Bill
Definitely +1 on the above.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:56 PM
> Subject: RE: SSL configuration file
>
>
You definitely don't want to leave the impression with a user that configuring a secure
server is 'easy'. It's not. The most simplistic and common case is probably insecure.
Bill
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:06:09PM -0400, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
wrote:
> > Oh !!.. that's right
This is one of those 'light bulb comes on' posts.
The mod_mime bug of not correctly handling unknown file name extensions essentially
renders all the negotiable variants equivalent! mod_negotiation does the right thing
and
serves up the smallest of the equivalent variants!
Bill
> On Tue, Oct 0
...after porting Bill Rowe's last mod_negotiation patch to 1.3.
These showstoppers are in the STATUS file...
Netware, OS2, and MPE may require gettid() and tid_t definitions in
those platforms' os.h headers for mod_unique_id.
Status: Win32 OK. Netware ??. OS2 ??. MPE ??.
Se
I'll hold off on the tag for a few hours more.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "David McCreedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: Apache 1.3.21 tag this evening
>
> I'm hitting a fatal compilation error on TPF with
Hold on commits.
Bill,
Let's save the usertrack patch for 1.3.22. I did a bit of testing/compiling last night
and
I would prefer not to redo that work.
Bill
-based.html.html
cvs server: nothing known about name-based.html.ja.jis
cvs [server aborted]: correct the above errors first!
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:03 AM
Subject: Tagging 1.3.21 n
My first inclination is to tag httpd-docs-1.3 separately from the rest of the tree.
Wanted
to query the list to see if that is the 'right' solution.
Bill
- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Th
Tagged. Please test APACHE_1_3_21 tag. Plan to roll the tarball in 24 hours.
Bill
> Hold on commits.
>
> Bill,
> Let's save the usertrack patch for 1.3.22. I did a bit of testing/compiling last
>night
and
> I would prefer not to redo that work.
>
>
> Bill
>
Good message from Mark that is worthy of discussion...
- Original Message -
From: "Mark J Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Tagging 1.3.21 now
> Bill; normally the
I am not at all sure I like ap_rlog_error() adding an error-notes (to r->notes) under
the
covers. For those that are not familer with this, if you call ap_rlog_error() for a
failed request, the first call will copy your log message to the output stream sent
back
to the client. You can end up w
> At 2:37 PM +0200 4/19/02, Graham Leggett wrote:
> >
> >Is it possible to create a 1.3.26 release which includes all the proxy
> >fixes to date?
> >
>
> I'm +1 for a 1.3.26...
My e-mail is back!!!
+1
Bill
I quickly reviewed the PR and the example does not demonstrate the reported problem.
The
response is HTTP/1.0 compliant. That the server responds with "HTTP/1.1" is not
relevant.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Developers" <[EMAIL PROTECT
Just to clarify... Unless a case is clearly demonstrated where HTTP/1.1 protocol is
being
used with a client that should have been negotiated down to HTTP/1.0, then this is not
a
defect. We should not change the "HTTP/1.1" string in the response.
Bill
> I quickly reviewed the PR and the examp
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > Just to clarify... Unless a case is clearly demonstrated where HTTP/1.1 protocol is
being
> > used with a client that should have been negotiated down to HTTP/1.0, then this is
>not
a
> > defect. We should not change the "HTTP/1.1&quo
+1
> Hi,
>
> I volunteer to be RM for 2.0.36 (that is, if noone
> has a problem with that ;).
>
> I'm aware of the issues we still have in HEAD, which
> is why we need a tag and run that on daedalus.
>
> However, I'll hold of on the tag since there are
> probably going to be some file moves in
> On 23 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8407
> > reverse proxy return FORBIDDEN all the time
> >
> > --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-04-23 17:25
>---
> > I loaded additionnal mod_proxy modules (mod_proxy_http.s
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> > We have the exact same issue with mod_cache
> > (mod_mem_cache/mod_disk_cache). What do you think about hiding the load
> > of the protocol modules behind a config directive?
>
> I don't have a conceptual prob
Does this change effectively negate the -c option?
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Bannert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:04 PM
Subject: [PATCH] improve request multiplexing in AB
> This patch corrects some problems in the ability o
Please lets not go overboard with these types of optimizations. This could get out of
control quickly. Having code that is easy to read, understand and maintain is -much-
more
important than saving a a few extra cycles.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PR
Would someone care to see if this fixes the worker MPM performance problem reported
earlier on the list (request-per-second dropping when clients exceeded
threadsperchild)?
This patch defers starting the listener untill -all- the workers have started.
Bill
Index: worker.c
==
loops;
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: [PATCH] Possible fix for worker MPM performance problem
> Would someone care to see if this fixes the worker MPM performance problem
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 11:30:54AM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > Would someone care to see if this fixes the worker MPM performance problem reported
> > earlier on the list (request-per-second dropping when clients exceeded
threadsperchild)?
> > This patch defers startin
> > From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 11:30:54AM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > Would someone care to see if this fixes the worker MPM performance
> > problem reported
> > > earlier on the list (request-p
+1. Only I really don't like mod_mem_cache or mod_cache_mem as the module can also
+cache
open fds.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: mod_foo_ families
> Can we agree to fo
Can we move mod_deflate out of experimental? It seems to be quite stable...
Bill
>From http_protocol.c...
* 1. Call setup_client_block() near the beginning of the request
*handler. This will set up all the necessary properties, and will
*return either OK, or an error code. If the latter, the module should
*return that error code. The second parameter selects th
1 - 100 of 886 matches
Mail list logo