On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Kean Johnston kean.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't you move the integer comparison to ahead of the apr_table_get and
strcmp()? That way relatively expensive options get boolean short-circuited.
If we switch it to the default, then yah, that can help
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Yeah, I'm leaning towards agreeing w/ you there.
Both directives (HttpContentLengthHeadZero and HttpExpectStrict)
committed in r1554303. See below for how it affects the wire
protocol.
Now, let's discuss the defaults. =)
thing is one reason
why BSD failed while Linux succeeded... The result is
a *more* fragmented community, not a more cohesive and
collaborative one.
On Dec 27, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com
wrote:
Hi all!
There are two patches that the Ceph community has
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
As defaults, I'm -0, but as controllable alternatives: +1
I will whip up a patch for these two - will probably commit straight
to trunk. We can discuss the defaults separately. But, the more I
think about it, hiding C-L of
Hi all!
I'm currently using FastCGI for an application - in particular, Ceph's
radosgw (S3 endpoint). I was told to use mod_fastcgi as mod_fcgid doesn't
handle large request bodies appropriately. Yet, when I looked at the
mod_fastcgi code, I shrieked in horror. =)
In looking at
Hi all!
There are two patches that the Ceph community has applied to their httpd
packages in combination with radosgw (S3 endpoint) - (see
https://github.com/ceph/apache2).
One of them is to allow Content-Length of '0' to be emitted from HEAD
requests:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Ask Bjørn Hansen a...@develooper.comwrote:
On Dec 27, 2013, at 14:57, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com
wrote:
The use case here is that someone could store a zero-byte file inside of
radosgw. Amazon's S3 clients expect to see a Content-Length
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
Anyway, I'm diving into the code a bit - but, I figured it might be useful
to see if anyone else has any thoughts about how to handle large request
bodies with mod_fcgid.
Here's a first-cut patch that compiles
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be quite valuable if there is a limit on how much can be pre-read
(0 for pure streaming). Pre-reading the request body reduces the number of
application processes or threads required, and they are usually fatter
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.comwrote:
Anybody know if it still exists in Illumos? This sounds like a fun thing
to tackle next week in Portland. =) (I'll be there all week.) -- justin
As far as I can tell, multiple listeners and graceful are fine
Anybody know if it still exists in Illumos? This sounds like a fun thing
to tackle next week in Portland. =) (I'll be there all week.) -- justin
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
That is one ugly bug...
On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:50 PM, Rainer Jung
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.dewrote:
On 29.01.2013 11:19, Micha Lenk wrote:
Hi all,
I am going to attend (first time) the FOSDEM this year and would like to
know if there is a chance to meet Apache httpd developers there. I
didn't find a dedicated
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
On 05/24/2011 07:41 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Indeed this sounds like a general problem, but
ap_remove_output_filter does adjust r-output_filters
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Indeed this sounds like a general problem, but
ap_remove_output_filter does adjust r-output_filters if f-r is set and the
filter is the first one in the chain.
Which responses exactly suffer from this behaviour?
Use
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Hm, why is it not sufficient that we call ap_remove_output_filter and remove
the
filter from the chain if we do not initialize?
Does ap_remove_output_filter not remove the filter when it is the first one
in the chain?
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 23 May 2011, at 5:57 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
mod_dav uses r-output_filters - but, the pointer never gets updated
when it is the first one in the chain. Hence, we call mod_deflate all
the time even on a request
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
This patch should fix the memory leak. As I mentioned in a follow-up,
we can discuss in Dublin or Berlin if there is a better way to solve
this dangling filter reference...but, this will do the trick and
should
[ adding dev@httpd ]
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Ivan Zhakov i...@visualsvn.com wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:18, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Ivan Zhakov i...@visualsvn.com wrote:
Unfortunately huge memory leak in mod_deflate
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Stefan Sperling s...@elego.de wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 09:27:18AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
If we also have a tuning section, we should remind folks to also
enable mod_deflate (SetOutputFilter DEFLATE in their Location block)
as that'll help a bit
In r951893, httpd modified a #define for APLOG_MARK to add in a new
parameter called APLOG_MODULE_INDEX (in addition to file and line
info).
This busts Subversion - specifically, mod_authz_svn which has a function called:
static void
log_access_verdict(const char *file, int line,
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
Basicly all this stuff is done to use the advanced features of C99 compilers
that allow us to check with low effort whether a call to the error logging
function is needed at all given the currently
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
I agree that the comments/documentation should be improved. I will write a
how-to for adjusting modules to the new API.
Here is a constructive suggestion (*grin*): in APR, for some of the
more complex declarations (see
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
I guess his comment was more about the macro wrappers and the C99 stuff,
which saves us the function call if we would not log due to the loglevel
currently set. I think this is one aspect of the changes and one were
we
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
This is a good idea. I have started it in r989377.
Thanks! -- justin
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
Thanks very much for all the responses. There is strong consensus for
retaining support for some varieties of 0.9.8 and possibly some 0.9.7.
A new RFC, then, for trunk/2.3 and beyond:
- support and build warning-free with
I would like to go commit the following to apr and httpd trunk.
I don't think it is appropriate for the local buildconf-time
environment to make it impossible at configure-time to use an older
APR configuration. Restoring find_apu.m4 to apr trunk resolves this
issue for me. (I'm leaving the
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no ready answer to this, but I wonder: How much of the
current conditional logic is required to support the OpenSSL in
fully patched RHEL 4
fully patched Solaris 10
(some other typical server platform that
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Sander Temme scte...@apache.org wrote:
Wouldn't we rather move to a construct where APR is not needed to buildconf?
If all we're doing is copy in find_apr.m4, can't we just fork that and allow
it to evolve into our own idea of finding an appropriate APR
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Is your thinking to use a find_ap[r|u] setup that can resolve either/or
at ./configure-time?
Yes.
Since we've acknowledged that apr/apu are hand-in-hand with 2.0, does it
make sense to merge these and distribute
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Noirin Shirley noi...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote:
How about Apache Web Server? Httpd is just the name of one of the
files, and not even the one people run to start it most of the time.
Apache HTTP
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't see how your patch would intentionally break - the failure
mechanism is that the source scripts are served - not that a
configuration error stops the server from
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
Update: looks like we will be doing it on January Tuesday 26th at the Y!
Campus.
one day only?
Perhaps Monday or Wednesday those of us out-of-towners
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Sander Temme scte...@apache.org wrote:
On Dec 9, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Over on TraffiicServer,
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Paul Quernap...@querna.org wrote:
I am looking for an alternative that doesn't expose all this crazyness
of when to free, destruct, or lock things. The best idea I can come
up with is for each Connection, it would become 'semi-sticky' to a
single thread.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
IMHO we shouldn't require APR 2.0 for trunk (although trunk should be
capable to run with 2.0).
+1
+1. -- justin
2009/3/27 William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net:
abandoned, but in theory might work for 90% of the cases. Do we work
to preserve them, or work to recover them if we break them, or do we
truly bother either way?
I wouldn't bother - older versions would work just fine. But, maybe
it'd
2009/3/26 Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org:
We should axe
leader
perchild
threadpool
immediately in trunk as IMHO they are not maintained for years.
+1. -- justin
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
I think the default should be event for the time being.
+1. -- justin
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Paul Querna c...@force-elite.com wrote:
23-27 March 2009, Amsterdam:
http://www.eu.apachecon.com/c/aceu2009/
I'll be there at least
Ditto. -- justin
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
+1.
Thanks. -- justin
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIK it is resolved by 120664-01 or later (or x86-equiv patch), from
several years ago...
Yah, we already have configure checks for this. I don't like adding
unnecessary complexity to work around an OS bug that we've
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 5:37 AM, rj...@apache.org wrote:
Author: rjung
Date: Sat Jan 3 05:37:05 2009
New Revision: 730984
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=730984view=rev
Log:
Fix correct linking against PCRE.
r730882 broke builds on MacOSX.
Works fine now on Mac OS X w/jlibtool.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
So, is that better or worse than getting a bounce message? I'll point out
that Yahoo! used to have a similar problem, but have since resolved it. I
wonder what gmail does now?
When you hit 'reply-all' now, GMail adds
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Nice. How do people actually handle moderation at the ASF then?
You're *supposed* to be using Reply-All when you want to accept
a post. Are none of these clients out there ezmlm-compatible?
Gmail does the same thing
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Shrug, I can try completely removing the To: header, but I'm fairly
certain that some MTA's will add one back (and a missing To: header
will trigger anti-spam). Other than that, it's pick your poison
time, since no
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Andre and Roy are the only ones signed up for moderation of c...@httpd.
I think the people who want it to go back to being a moderated list
should first step up and offer to moderate it before we revert the
config.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
I for one don't want the duplicate messages; reply-to says dev@ and that is
where patches for discussion should be discussed. Re: Crap doesn't belong
on a commits notification list.
I don't want crap every time I
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
nob...@apache.org routes to the bit-bucket, so that would work for the To:
header. That's what I would recommend doing at this point, although I've
just implemented Justin's recommended config and will stop there until
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mads Toftum m...@toftum.dk wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:52:49AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't want crap every time I hit reply either. Remembering every
time to cut the address or living with the blowback is even more
unacceptable. -- justin
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Mads Toftum m...@toftum.dk wrote:
seems to me that this will be almost as broken as the use of
undisclosed. you're still removing what was used to filter on. Existing
filters are still broken.
No, correct filters should be keying off List-Post/List-Id.
File a
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
I am completely uninterested in fixing the config just because some
person reflexively does a reply-all and then doesn't edit their own
destination addresses. There is nothing to fix here. A bounce is what
they are
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Paul Querna c...@force-elite.com wrote:
[ -1 ] Release httpd-2.3.1 as Alpha
For me, r730882 busts the build on Mac OS X. (It can't find pcre.)
More in my reply to the commit msg... -- justin
[ It's odd as I didn't get the email for this commit...anyway... ]
Author: rjung
Date: Fri Jan 2 17:01:56 2009
New Revision: 730882
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=730882view=rev
Log:
Only link libhttpd against pcre.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
Modified:
A while back, we made a configuration change to all of our commits@
(aka cvs@) lists across the foundation so that they are unmoderated.
As a side-effect, it means that all posts require @apache.org
addresses or you get a bounce back from MAILER-DAEMON.
The side-effect of this (for at least
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:51 AM, pque...@apache.org wrote:
Author: pquerna
Date: Sat Dec 27 08:51:31 2008
New Revision: 729641
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729641view=rev
Log:
Change the sitemap index generator to split the sitemap indexes every 500
entries, as the great GOOG
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 7, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
Our production sites IMHO shouldn't be guinea pigs for -alpha versions.
Best. Place. Ever. to try out our stuff to find and fix bugs.
Especially nasty edge cases
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mod_luau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luau
+1. -- justin
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it can be done in wombat_request_rec_hook_harness, if
hook_spec-function_name is NULL, then assume that we need to set these
globals -- and then apw_run_wombat_request should be able to continue as
normal.
Thoughts?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You miss my point. If we just have one MPM, and make it
such that other MPMs are at a significant advantage, then
why even have MPMs? Hardcode in simple and be done.
(Assume you may have meant 'disadvantage'?)
In any
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But IMHO the code is now correct after the patch and the tests are wrong. The
following
patch makes the tests pass again:
+1. -- justin
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tend to agree... as long as the architectural design doesn't
prevent people from creating (or keeping) MPMs, then this is all
good. Believe it or not, as people on the front-lines of handling
Apache setup and support for
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Ohad Lutzky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*SNIP* patch *SNIP*
The patch seems to work well, thanks! :)
Cool - committed in r697920. Thanks. -- justin
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Ohad Lutzky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
We've been using flood for a project, and couldn't get revision 672044
to compile in gcc-4.2.3-2ubuntu7 without the attached patch. The error
we got was:
flood_round_robin.c: In function 'round_robin_profile_init':
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Ohad Lutzky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From flood_report_relative_times.c (SVN):
/* FIXME: this call may need to be in a critical section */
#if APR_HAS_THREADS
apr_file_printf(local_stdout, %s %ld %s\n, buf,
apr_os_thread_current(), req-uri);
#else
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a piece of advice that, had I'd received it, would have saved me a
couple days of yak shaving. -T
Doh. =)
Committed in r696006. Thanks. -- justin
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the fact that Jim plans to TR 2.2.10 mid-, late September
I triaged through the STATUS file. There are 10 proposal left
where 6 of them only miss one vote. From the remaining 4 with only
one vote two are still
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
The following patch against trunk adds dynamic locking callbacks to mod_ssl.
OpenSSL uses these in several places, including the CHIL engine that
interfaces with the nCipher products. I work at nCipher, and this
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we only vote on code and not on docco.
So IMHO you could backport without votes.
Ya, but since I only made the commit to trunk this morning, I figured
I'd let it sit. If Jim wants to backport, he can. -- justin
Hi everyone,
Peter is a PhD student at University of Victoria who is looking into
how open source projects perform peer reviews. I've met him a few
times and he's a good guy - so if you could please take the time to
fill out his survey below, it'd be most appreciated. =)
Thanks! -- justin
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If David is happy to subscribe to this list and make it his
primary forum for the module, then +1.
+1.
Embrace and extend. =) -- justin
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could go along with switching the default merging rule from OR to AND,
even within a dir block. The reason why it is OR today was basically for
backward compatibility. Since there really wasn't any kind of logic
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a release of the main stable
branch, which at this time is 2.2.x.
I would like to go for 3 month, so four times per year or once each
quarter.
I think it's a good idea -
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if APR ships 1.3.0 - would we be prepared to accept 1.3.0 as the new
minimum version, modulo the minor MMN bump?
+1. -- justin
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Akins, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very rough draft. But this is not necessarily slow... ;)
Right.
Even then, the user/admin may be willing to burn CPU cycles anyway to
get a simpler config. Plus, if they were to use mod_rewrite, they've
already blown a
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, after last year's experience of being the only server
person around who wasn't working on a Joost release,
*hides*
I decided to delay
my arrival until Tuesday rather than attend the hackathon.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sympathize, but this doesn't reflect the addition of lua blocks...
those blocks can be trivially implemented as a loadable module ;-)
As I grok it, the point would be throw out our ridiculous config
syntax
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO, we work best when we feel empowered to scratch our itches...
As we've also seen, sometimes all it takes is someone to create
a rough framework of an implementation for people to get excited
by it and jump right on
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The session cache interface in mod_ssl on the trunk is now mostly SSL-
and mod_ssl-agnostic with respect to the data storage and configuration.
There is still some tight coupling between the session cache and the
ssl_mutex
On Feb 18, 2008 2:49 PM, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
true but like Roy said if mod_dns is allready in use a new name will
need to be found no?
The mod_dns listed on Freshmeat looks like it was lasted changed in
2001 and was only for 1.3. We could drop a line to the guy and see if
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite... there's nothing in providers, per se, that limit
how they are *used* to be oneshot... Just ask Brad and aaa :)
+1.
I personally find the vtable interface easier to deal with - you have
a 'set' of functions
On Feb 9, 2008 6:00 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whichever is easiest. Happy to plop it in there at google. As it has a
while to go before we should/could offer this for inclusion at httpd/
apache.
Well, it could be fleshed out in trunk - it won't be backported to
2.2.x
On Feb 9, 2008 5:36 AM, josh rotenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to collaborate on the google project let me know and I can
add you, or you can take over, or however.
Or, better yet, how about adding mod_memcache_cache (gah - crappy
name) to trunk? There's no real reason why we
On Feb 9, 2008 7:37 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless you swap in some third party (memcached, distcache, commercial
netapp) module.
But, if we want a 'good' out-of-the-box experience, then it sounds
like we should enable mod_disk_cache too. Similarly, it wouldn't make
On Jan 18, 2008 2:30 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO it doesn't for the first request of the entity (the request that causes
the entity to be cached)
I'd expect the predominance of large numbers would reduce the impact
of the one-time performance hit...but that conversion away
On Jan 18, 2008 10:52 AM, Akins, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is why I hate to see a ton of work go into async core if it actually
does very little to help performance (or if it hurts it) and makes writing
modules harder. It braindead simple nowadays to write well behaved high
On Jan 6, 2008 11:41 PM, Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I actually built my own perl 5.10.0, put its bin in front of my PATH
and installed all the requisite modules. I did this mainly because I
don't want to mess with the system installation, but prefer to hose
one I can easily replace.
On Jan 7, 2008 2:34 AM, Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've added a test case to t/modules/proxy.t in perl-framework which
exercises the non-blockingness of the chunked encoding parser a little
by dripfeeding a chunked response at it, byte by byte, it passes with
the trunk and fails with
On Jan 6, 2008 10:13 AM, Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) on PowerPC:
[-1] 1.3.40 (CVE-2007-6388 not fixed)
[+1] 2.0.62 (with SSL toolkit detection patch, and sendfile disabled)
[+1] 2.2.7
Darwin Graymalkin.local 9.1.0 Darwin Kernel Version 9.1.0: Wed Oct 31
On Jan 4, 2008 12:00 PM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1 for 2.2.7.
Tested on Mac OS 10.5.1 (aka 9.1.0) with APR/APR-util 1.2.12.
Some caveats though on Mac OS - I have a hunch they are more about the
test suite than anything else.
Configure
On Dec 31, 2007 5:12 PM, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone is familiar with autconf and modules, I would *love* if that
person could take a look at helping me clean up mod_wombat's build,
which is presently a mess.
I, to be honest, don't understand enough automake/autoconf
On Dec 10, 2007 10:42 PM, Stefan Fritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that works as well. I wanted to avoid calling APR_BRIGADE_PREPEND
when the temporary brigade is empty. But I don't really know whether
APR_BRIGADE_PREPEND is so expensive that this makes sense. An
alternative would be to
On Dec 5, 2007 8:36 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* My test case lead to the exceptional situation of a very large passbb
bucket brigade
(about 1,000,000 buckets) as a result of processing 4 MB of the file. So I
add
a flush bucket once I have more than MAX_BUCKET
On Dec 4, 2007 5:15 AM, Martin Kraemer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The usernames in WIN32 are, IIRC , case insensitive (and they are in
BS2000, and perhaps in OS2?).
I don't get it - why should usernames be case-insensitive? There's no
involvement of the Win32 (OS/2, z/OS, Netware, etc.) API here
On Nov 26, 2007 4:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generally speaking, if someone tells you to do something in IRC
then it is almost certainly the wrong thing to do -- just like
decisions made in boring meetings.
Philip said he never intended to commit it.
The right thing to
On Nov 26, 2007 8:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Once we switched our code to supporting external PCREs, in my opinion,
we should have just dropped the whole vendor branch concept as it
serves no legitimate purpose any more. If the PCRE guys
On Nov 26, 2007 8:46 PM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay with me. All we need now is a volunteer to figure out what
(if any) changes are needed to use a separately installed PCRE.
All hail Guido's time machine than has been hijacked by Joe. =) -- justin
% ./configure --help |
On Nov 15, 2007 7:00 PM, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the plan to remove the filtering mechanism entirely, or just the
filters that make HTTP happen?
I honestly don't know yet. =) -- justin
On Nov 16, 2007 5:56 AM, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK cool. Will you guys put serf in ASF, or is it going to
stay at Google?
As I mentioned before, the only place serf would go is back 'home' to
Apache. But, that is predicated on the presence of a healthy
community to manage and
On Nov 15, 2007 12:10 PM, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the guys committing those stuff can share some light
to the rest of us, perhaps we could participate as well.
The path we're going down (for now) is making serf the core
input/output filtering mechanism. In a conversation here
On Nov 15, 2007 12:17 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And in the case above we only read the data from ser_in_bucket, but unlike in
the AP_MODE_READBYTES
case we do not create a transient bucket with data and add it to the bb
brigade. So the
caller gets back an empty brigade
1 - 100 of 1873 matches
Mail list logo
