Re: Stripping Content-Length headers

> Here's my question: why is C-L filter even getting involved if there > is a C-L header? Why shouldn't it just get out of the way if there > is a C-L already present? Why do the duplication? Should we assume > that any module that changes the content is smart enough to unset it? > Perhaps we

Re: Stripping Content-Length headers

On Sun, 5 May 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 06:26:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The filter should remain regardless of whether there is a C-L, because we > > use that filter to determine exactly how much data was sent through the > > filter stack. That is us

Re: [PATCH] Switch DAV PUT to use brigades

> > > +if (APR_BUCKET_IS_EOS(bucket)) { > > > +seen_eos = 1; > > > +break; > > > +} > > > + > > > +/* Ahem, what to do? */ > > > +if (APR_BUCKET_IS_METADATA(bucket)) { > > > +

Re: HEAD of a CGI script returning Content-Length?

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > I noticed that when issuing a HEAD request on a CGI page (trying > unsuccessfully to reproduce the showstopper), the Content-Length is > not returned. > > RFC 2616 Section 9.4: > > The metainformation contained in the HTTP headers in response to a

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server core.c

On 15 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > rbb 2002/06/14 22:49:06 > > Modified:.CHANGES >server core.c > Log: > Make the default_handler catch all requests that aren't served by > another handler. This also gets us to r

RE: PATH_INFO in A2?

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > What is a dynamic page if not a PHP page? > > > > Like I said, Apache doesn't know if a file on disk is meant for PHP or > > not. The best way to fix this would be for mod_php to set the value if > > the filter is added for the request. > > > > I a

[PATCH] apr_poll, take 2

FirstBill found a bug in my poll implementation today. It was working for sockets most of the time, but it always failed with pipes. It also wasn't correctly returning APR_TIMEUP. This new patch should fix the problems. Same as last time, apply the patch, then in srclib/apr, untar the tarball

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS

On 17 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > trawick 2002/07/17 15:15:01 > > Modified:.STATUS > Log: > somebody please tell me I don't know how to read C code anymore > > (I guess the pool for an Apache socket will grow on every read/write > operation that would block.)

Re: daedalus is running httpd-2.0.pre40

> I guess I wasn't clear. I have automation that creates a new conf/, then copies > in httpd.conf* from the production conf/ with appropriate edits. So my conf/ > directory exists, but doesn't contain mime.types (or several other files which > aren't relevant on daedalus). > > make install run

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 Makefile.in

On 19 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > gregames2002/07/19 08:11:58 > > Modified:.Makefile.in > Log: > Install mime.types and magic in conf/ if they don't already exist. > > This also re-enables existing logic to always install *-std.conf with > substitutions made.

Re: [PATCH] UDP support

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote: > Ryan Bloom wrote: > > I don't believe that this should be incorporated into the core > > server. The core of Apache is an HTTP server, which means that it should > > only know how to listen on TCP sockets. The support is there however, for > > other soc

Perchild works again.... kind of

f anybody has a Solaris box that I can get access to, I would be more than happy to continue to fix bugs in this MPM. Hopefully, more commits tomorrow. Ryan rbb 2002/08/17 23:05:48 Modified:server/mpm/experimental/perchild perchild.c Log: This commit gets Perchild working ag

Re: reading post data

Noah, I already answered your question through Jim Harter at Covalent. You cannot pass information from an input filter to the access checker, because the input filter runs during the handler phase, and the access_checker function runs long before that. You will need to do your access checkin

Re: [PATCH] Re: proxy & cgi no longer streamed, C-L filter buffers

> To solve the problem that Blaise noted, I believe we'll have to > make the content_length filter stop reading buckets altogether > (which I think is absolutely the right thing to do, but we'll > have to find some other place to compute r->bytes_sent). Compute r->bytes_sent in core_output_filte

RE: reading post data

> >Noah, > > > >I already answered your question through Jim Harter at Covalent. You > >cannot pass information from an input filter to the access checker, > >because the input filter runs during the handler phase, and the > >access_checker function runs long before that. > > It wasn't clear u

Re: Question about command parsing in mod_ext_filter.

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Don't we -already- have some argv parsing code in either proc.c or the mod_cgi > that could be used for this purpose??? Let's make that exported, accessible > code from apr itself. We already have it, and it is exported from APR. Look in strin

Re: Perchild on Solaris (was: Perchild works again.... kind of)

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:07:37AM +0900, Tsuyoshi SASAMOTO wrote: > > On Solaris, this macro definition is required to build successfully: > > -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 -D__EXTENSIONS__ > > > > By the way, with the perchild MPM, httpd performance is > > "

Re: Perchild on Solaris (was: Perchild works again.... kind of)

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Tsuyoshi SASAMOTO wrote: > On Solaris, this macro definition is required to build successfully: > -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 -D__EXTENSIONS__ This is because APR doesn't understand file descriptor passing, which means that I hard-coded that logic into Perchild. I used the logic

Re: Counting bytes_sent in core output_filter Re: [PATCH: Apache2.0] mod_log_config: input/output bytes

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:27:29AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote: > > The remaining problem is: how can we identify the request_rec from > > within core_output_filter()? Within that filter, f->r is NULL. I > > have some ideas for solving this by putting

Re: Adding apreq-2 to httpd-2.0

On 21 Aug 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote: > Joe Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The apreq developers would like to see apreq-2 [*] > > make its way into the apache 2 distribution. Here's why: > > Did you consider adding it to apr-util? (probably a dumb idea, but I'm > interested in what

Re: Counting bytes_sent in core output_filter Re: [PATCH: Apache2.0] mod_log_config: input/output bytes

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Brian Pane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >To solve the original problem, just look for ap_check_pipeline_flush, and > >around that function (or in the core's log_transaction phase), just reset > >c->bytes_sent to 0. If you do it in the core's log_transaction phase,

Re: Counting bytes_sent in core output_filter Re: [PATCH: Apache2.0] mod_log_config: input/output bytes

> >>c->bytes_sent? Did you mean r->bytes_sent? The conn_rec doesn't > >>have a byte count. > >> > >> > > > >Yeah, sorry. > > > > > > Okay, now I'm less confused. :-) But we still have the problem of > updating r->bytes_sent from the core output filter, given that we > don't have access

Re: Counting bytes_sent in core output_filter Re: [PATCH: Apache2.0] mod_log_config: input/output bytes

> > IMO, the best solution is to move the bytes_sent information to the > > conn_rec, and have the protocol module reset it whenever it wants to. For > > backwards compat, it would be REALLY cool, if the r->bytes_sent could be > > linked to c->bytes_sent, but it can't, so oh well. > > Why don't

Re: Counting bytes_sent in core output_filter Re: [PATCH: Apache2.0] mod_log_config: input/output bytes

> >Adding the request_rec to the bucket is a bad idea, because currently > >buckets have no concept of Apache internals, and I would prefer that they > >stay that way. > > > > The trick is to not add the request_rec to the bucket: just add a > void* "client_data" field to the bucket, so that apr

Re: Counting bytes_sent in core output_filter Re: [PATCH: Apache2.0] mod_log_config: input/output bytes

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Brian Pane wrote: > Bojan Smojver wrote: > > >On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 09:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > IMO, the best solution is to move the bytes_sent information to the > conn_rec, and have the protocol module reset it whenever it wants to. For > back

Re: [PROPOSAL] Move AUTH_LDAP to /experimental (was: authenticationrewrite)

I am very much against putting more modules into the standard server. Ryan On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Brad Nicholes wrote: >Now that 2.0.40 has been released and we are in development of .41 > and the fact that there has been a proposal for re-architecting the AUTH > modules, I would like to pro

Is anybody getting CVS commit messages?

I realized earlier today that I haven't been seeing commit messages. Is anybody getting these messages? Ryan -- ___ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -

Re: Going to 2.1? was Re: authentication rewrite

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:25:36PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > branches in CVS are awful (perhaps not so with SVN though). > > I have only heard anecdotal evidence for this, but have actually > used cvs branches on other large and very successf

Re: El-Kabong -- HTML Parser

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > > Justin and I have both given our thumbs up. The question is now where to put > > > the thing. A few people say APR, and few don't like that. A few say httpd, > > > and a few don't like that. Bleh :-) > > > > I'm 100% comfy with the landing spot bei

Re: authn/authz split

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 01:48 AM 8/30/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >Since no one had any feedback to the earlier posts about splitting > >the auth modules into authn/authz, I decided to just call it authn > >(old auth) and authz (what Dirk called access). > > > >

Re: 2.1 repository?

> [...] > > Look at all of the repositories we created that are still left > > around: > > > > apache-1.2 > > apache-1.3 > > apache-apr > > apache-nspr > > httpd-2.0 > > > > The apache-apr and apache-nspr repositories were fairly short-lived. > > I wasn't around when they were created, so perhaps

Re: what's the hubbub? (was: Re: 2.0/2.1 split)

++1. Ryan On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Ian Holsman wrote: > > > > what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting > > out to a 2.1 tree > > > > ++1 > > -- ___ Ryan Bloom

Re: perchild on Darwin, hmmm

That is awesome! The code is REALLY crufty still, but it would be great to get more eys on it. Fair warning, it is REALLY fragile still. Happy hacking. :-) Ryan On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Except for the poll.h header line, perchild compiled quite nicely on > Darwin (Jagu

Re: El-Kabong -- HTML Parser

There are currently two possible avenues. 1) The code goes into apr-util. 2) The code goes into a sandbox project. The APR option is faster, but there is some misgivings about whether it belongs in apr-util. The vote was done, and it seems to be accepted, but Greg was keeping tally, so I don

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Please vote: > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. Ryan

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > > My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new > users, and breaking things all the time won't help :) Can

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > > > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > > > > > > My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: > > > > > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > > > > > > [X] Check in aaa

Re: mod_mime on virtual requests?

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Someone recently brought up the fact that they couldn't add a PHP > filter to a SVN-served repository via AddOutputFilter. > > I think this is due to the following issues: > > 1) type_checker is a run_first rather than run_all. > >Any reason w

Re: Filters question

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Graham Leggett wrote: > Hi all, > > Is it possible to read brigades from two filter stacks simultaneously? Yes and no. The two filter stacks share no data at all, so it is perfectly safe to call ap_get_brigade on both filter stacks. However, we can't poll based on filter s

Re: mod_mime on virtual requests?

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 09:45:47AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It is run_first because each response can only have a single content-type, > > and the only reason to use that hook is to get the content-type. This is > > also a performance iss

Re: compatibility with C++ modules

So I haven't really looked into how it works, but have you looked at mod_cplusplus? http://sourceforge.net/projects/modcplusplus/ Ryan On 6 Sep 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote: > At about the same time recently that I was doing horrible, > uncommittable hacks to the build to get Apache 2.0 to suppor

Re: Releasing 2.0.41

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Dale Ghent wrote: > On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Greg Stein wrote: > > | On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 02:12:10PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > | >... > | > There are a few other little bugs that I'd like to fix so that 2.0.41 > | > holds most folks for a month or few. I have no obj

Re: Tagged the tree

Generally, we do not create tarballs of tags, because the tags are meant to be used by developers before the release is rolled. The problem with tarballs, is that once they are created, they can be downloaded, and then it is very difficult to determine which version of the tarball a user has. B

Re: Tagged the tree

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > - - Original Message - > From: "Aaron Bannert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:22 PM > Subject: Re: Tagged the tree > > > If there are enoug

Re: Is it time to split the APR/HTTPD releases ?

+1, as soon as both APR and APR-util have a release. Ryan On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Ian Holsman wrote: > APR now has version management. > is it time to stop just tagging the HEAD of the apr/apr-util trees > when we make a release and just use the offically released ones? > ie.. we would bundle apr

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support htpasswd.c

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 01:36 AM 9/10/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:00:51AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > jerenkrantz2002/09/09 20:00:50 > > > > > > Modified:.CHANGES > > >support htpasswd.c >

Re: El-Kabong -- HTML Parser

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Can we settle down? A donation of code was being offered, and there was > discussion within the ASF about it, but the status of those discussions > weren't being folded back to the donator. > > Before we veer off on yet another tangent, can we address

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support htpasswd.c

This message is complete hand-waving. The point of htpasswd is to create password files for mod_auth. It doesn't create password files for use with other authentication schemes. More to the point, if anybody ever uses this option, it will FAIL with mod_auth. That violates the principle of lea

Re: perchild under Solaris 8

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > At 11:07 AM -0700 9/10/02, Aaron Bannert wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> If '-D_XPG4_2 -D__EXTENSIONS__' are added to CPPFLAGS during the configure > >> process, perchild will compile relatively cleanly unde

Re: mod_custom_log exits too late?

On 17 Sep 2002, Brian Pane wrote: > On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 23:32, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 09:46:47AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote: > > > I disagree entirely. There's no need to let the API keep changing > > > continuously, especially not for the sake of "correctness." All

Re: auth stuff still broken

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > I was thinking about this. What about -eliminating- the mod_authn_default > and mod_authz_default, merging them into mod_auth, and moving the > directives from mod_auth_basic and mod_auth_digest into the common > mod_auth. > > Mod_auth would fu

Re: auth stuff still broken

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 10:26:02AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 01:00:44PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > > > Does that make any sense? I'm certain you will have users misconfigure > > > > the 'backstop' modules (_default flavors)

RE: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41

> > I would also recommend a new tarball with the timestamp tweaked. Something > > like so: > > > > $ tar xzf httpd-tar.gz > > $ touch .../ssl_expr_parse.c > > $ tar czf httpd-tar.gz httpd-... > > > > That's gonna affect the tarball's MD5 signature tho. > > And the PGP signatures. Do

Re: [PATCH]: Update request in connection based filters

You don't want to do this. A connection based filter is connection oriented. By definition, it has no concept of a request. While this might make sense for HTTP, other protocol modules will have a much harder time with this change. Ryan On 18 Sep 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Justin, > > Af

Re: [PATCH]: Update request in connection based filters

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote: > I understand. But isn't the ap_read_request HTTP specific given it's creating > the request and all? In other words, if protocol is HTTP, we let connection > filter know about the request. If not, we don't. That to me sounds exactly the > same as your s

Re: [PATCH]: Update request in connection based filters

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > The problem is that the filters aren't HTTP specific. If you make this > > change, then the filters will be written to take advantage of the f->r > > field in connection level filters. Since that field doesn't make se

Re: [PATCH]: Update request in connection based filters

On 19 Sep 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 00:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The easiest way, would be to put the filters in mod_log_config, and have > > that module save the information in a connection_rec vector. > > OK, I think I roughly understand what is the plan: >

Seg fault in mod_dav.

I don't know if this is in .41 because I haven't had time to test it yet. But, HEAD of mod_dav has an annoying seg fault. Basically, if you send an OPTIONS request for a location that isn't configured for DAV, the module seg faults. I have traced it far enough to know where it is happening, bu

Re: [PATCH]: Update request in connection based filters

On 19 Sep 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 07:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Great, now one more change. :-) > > > > Don't add the fields to the structure. The conn_Rec has a vector for > > modules to add data to. Create a log_config structure, and add the fields > > th

Re: Seg fault in mod_dav.

More details. YAY First, a stack trace: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. [Switching to Thread 1024 (LWP 18642)] 0x403cf42f in dav_method_options (r=0x8123470) at mod_dav.c:1762 1762if ((err = (*vsn_hooks->get_option)(resource, elem, &body)) (gdb) where

Re: Seg fault in mod_dav.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 07:47:14PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > > Okay... I've checked in the change. I'd suggest tossing 2.0.41 and roll this > > fix into a 2.0.42. (I'm not suggesting using HEAD for 2.0.42) > > > > Something like: > > > > $ cvs ta

Re: Seg fault in mod_dav.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 10:05 AM 9/19/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >+1 for .42 > > Agreed here, no signs of trouble. > > >And to make it official, .41 should be classified as an alpha release. > > All tarballs rolled are Alpha until otherwise released as Beta

Re: hep

Done Ryan On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Jon Travis wrote: > Hep pease unscripe !! > -- ___ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -

Re: [PATCH] core_output_filter

On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Ryan Morgan wrote: > > Thats a good point, I didn't think about that case. Maybe the safe way is > to just add a check for APR_TIMEUP? I would much rather check for EAGAIN than continue to add more codes that could mean failure. Or put more succinctly, there are far more

Re: instdso.sh - basename confusion

On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > > > And then try to install (on Solaris) a module as a .so: > > > > > > ../a2/bin/apxs -i -n mod_foo mod_foo.so > > > > I would suggest looking at HEAD rather than 2.0.40 as I made changes > > to instdso.sh to explicitly handle this case.

Re: CGI bucket needed

On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Greg Stein wrote: > Just ran into an interesting bug, and I've got a proposal for a way to solve > it, too. (no code tho :-) > > If a CGI writes to stderr [more than the pipe's buffer has room for], then > it will block on that write. Meanwhile, when Apache goes to deliver t

Re: How Do I Create A Per-Worker Pool?

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Charles Reitzel wrote: > Hi All, > > This is a thorny (to me) module development question. I have asked on the > module list and searched the archives, but have found only a partial > answer. Any pointers will be appreciated. > > Objective: to create a mutex-free pool p

Re: How Do I Create A Per-Worker Pool?

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Ian Holsman wrote: > Leonardo Javier Belén wrote: > > I think I have a question to ask associated to this thread: How can I > > implement a "global pool" of objects. Let me say it better, I want a global > > pool of database connection, first because I have a limited number o

Re: [PATCH] add simple ${ENV} substitution during config file read

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > In the department of scratching old itches - any strong objections to me > adding the following patch which allows one to do things like > > # httpd.conf > ServerRoot ${HOME}/apache > Port ${PORT:=80} > ErrorDocument

Re: How Do I Create A Per-Worker Pool?

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Charles Reitzel wrote: > Thanks for the reply. Forget the worker_rec for the time being. How do > you access the per-thread pool from a module? > > Sorry if I need it spelled out. But I don't see a pointer to it on the > request_rec, the server_rec is process-wide and t

Re: UDP ?

Serving content over UDP does work with 2.0. It takes some work, but all of the required features are there. However, I modified Apache a couple of years ago to serve HTTP over UDP, it doesn't work. The only reason to serve over UDP with Apache, is to serve a different protocol. IF you would

Re: POST

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 01:17:55AM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > Because 2.0.42 always displays script source for CGI scripts that use > > POST, I believe that we should put that notice on our main site, and stop > > suggesting 2.0.42 for production

SSL tests failing.

I just tried to make a minor change to the server, and test it to ensure that it didn't break anything. Unfortunately, the test suite is currently broken with regard to SSL. I haven't had time to look into this yet, and probably won't until Tuesday at the earliest. Ryan -- _

Re: SSL tests failing.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Monday, September 30, 2002 4:43 PM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I just tried to make a minor change to the server, and test it to ensure > > that it didn't break anything. Unfortunately, the test suite is currently > > broken with reg

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server core.c

On 1 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > gstein 2002/10/01 09:24:41 > > Modified:server core.c > Log: > Fix bug in the default handler. POST is not allowed on regular files. > The resource must be handled by something *other* than the default > handler. -1. This is going t

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9181] - Unable to set headers on non-2XXresponses.

Please do not close bug reports without entering some kind of information about why it is being closed. Ryan On 4 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG > RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT >

SSL Upgrade support.

Just a heads up. I wrote SSL Upgrade support this weekend for Apache 2.0. In my (currently) limited testing, things look pretty good. We currently respond to all requests correctly, and I think I have the SSL filters being inserted properly. However, there are no clients that I know of that s

Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > On 7/10/02 21:45, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 03:27 PM 10/7/2002, Sander Temme wrote: > >> Your HEAD probably uses the glibtool(ize) installation on your local box, > >> which on 10.2 by default is 1.4.2. The tarball was

Re: SSL Upgrade support.

Joe, I tried to compile cadaver 0.19.1 and 0.18.5, but neither one would compile for me. Do you happen to have linux binaries lying around, or do you have the magic incatation to get it to compile? BTW, I tried 0.18.5 becasue according to the CVS logs, it looks like that is the cadaver version

Re: sockets and such

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Randall Stewart wrote: > Hi: > > I am working on getting apache2 (2.0.43) to be able > to listen on SCTP sockets as well as TCP. > > This involves a small amount of work expanding the > socket_t to have a protocol field. It should be possible to do this without any core ch

Re: Apache and Unix domain sockets

uOn Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote: > This might sound silly, but can one make Apache 2.0 listen to a Unix domain > socket instead of a TCP socket? > > I looked through the code that has to do with sockets and it seemed as if that > was not possible at this point. But I might have missed

Re: sockets and such

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Randall Stewart wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Randall Stewart wrote: > > > > > >>Hi: > >> > >>I am working on getting apache2 (2.0.43) to be able > >>to listen on SCTP sockets as well as TCP. > >> > >>This involves a small amount of work expandi

Closing bugs.

Please do not mark bugs FIXED unless the problem is actually solved. I have noticed that bugs against experimental modules are often being closed with the explanation that the module isn't really ready for production use yet. That isn't a good reason to close a bug. The bug still exists, but p

Re: apache 2.0.43: %b not showing "bytes sent" but "bytes requested"

On 12 Oct 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 18:58, David Burry wrote: > > > This should also be a concern for anyone who's using mod_logio to charge for > > bandwidth, because customers should be concerned about some serious > > overcharging going on here! > > Only if you charg

Re: apache 2.0.43: %b not showing "bytes sent" but "bytes requested"

What we are learning here is simple. We need to do the counting in the core_output_filter. If that means adding a field to the conn_rec, or somehow getting the request_rec in the core_output_filter doesn't matter. The count needs to be done in the core_output_filter, by tallying the amount of

Re: apache test suite?

look at httpd-test. Ryan On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, David Burry wrote: > Has anyone worked on an Apache test suite? You know, like how many things > have a "make test" that runs all sorts of tests... or perhaps a separate > package that runs tests... I might be interested in starting one but would

Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?

On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Glenn wrote: Glenn, thanks I had deleted Jim's message and I was re-creating it. You made it so I didn't have to. :-) > On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding > > more and

Re: segfault in mod_negotiation.c

On 12 Oct 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote: > "Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > --- mod_negotiation.c Fri Aug 9 15:21:57 2002 > > +++ mod_negotiation.c.new Sat Oct 12 15:47:36 2002 > > @@ -2881,7 +2881,7 @@ > > int res; > > int j; > > > > -if (r->fin

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server log.c

On 13 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > wrowe 2002/10/12 20:25:04 > > Modified:server log.c > Log: > Some errors are impossible to fathom, without the user knowing certain > base numbers. This patch introduces "(EAP ##): Eap message" for the EAP > errors, "(OS ##):

Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?

On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS > > tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made > > the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they a

Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?

put their code in the httpd-2.1 branch? They shouldn't. I will personally be doing some pwork in /home/rbb/cvs either on www.apache.org or www.rkbloom.net in the next few weeks. Once I have a working prototype, I will open it up to people to look at and play with. Only then can we decide if

Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?

On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:00 PM -0700 Brian Pane > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign, > > but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in > > 2.1: async write support. And async

Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?

I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable. But, you have worn me down. Create a new fscking tree, populate it and begin working on it. I will be finishing 2.0. And yes, this is very harshly worded. We

Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?

On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 11:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done > >until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable. > > Fine. That's no reason to deprecate modules mid-

Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?

On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Greg Stein wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:18:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >... > > I think there is a much easier way to satisfy everybody and stay in the > > 2.0 tree. The problem right now, is that the MMN isn't granular > > enough. All we know, is that we

Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?

On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> In the message above, I don't > >> think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that > >> we should take the time to finish 2.0 before movin

Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?

On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 03:33 PM 10/13/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > >> At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> > >> >> In the message above, I don't > >> >> think

Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?

On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed. > > That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and > > doesn't really help

Final patch for a long time.

The recent conversations on this list have made me finally realize that I have been here too long. I need a project that is not the Apache web server. So, this is my good-bye. I will be unsubscribing from the Apache web server development lists in the next day or two. I will still be involved

  1   2   >