On 11/1/07 6:48 PM, "Ian Holsman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Akins, Brian wrote:
>> -1 from me (if that counts.)
>>
>> Using ProxyPass should be fine for 95% of the use cases??
>>
>> ProxyPass /cnn http://www.cnn.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
> yes.
> if you:
> a. have a static small number of hosts
>
Akins, Brian wrote:
-1 from me (if that counts.)
Using ProxyPass should be fine for 95% of the use cases??
ProxyPass /cnn http://www.cnn.com/
yes.
if you:
a. have a static small number of hosts
b. those hosts don't change often
if either of these 2 conditions aren't met, then proxypass
-1 from me (if that counts.)
Using ProxyPass should be fine for 95% of the use cases??
ProxyPass /cnn http://www.cnn.com/
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
Nick Kew wrote:
Our subrequest API currently handles only local subrequests,
so for example mod_include doesn't support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I tend to agree... This seems to open up a huge can
> of worms, and makes it v easy to people to use these "neat"
> feature and open themselves up to all kinds of
> nasty, nasty things.
If being properly documented, and disabl
On Mon, October 29, 2007 3:34 pm, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I tend to agree... This seems to open up a huge can
> of worms, and makes it v easy to people to use these "neat"
> feature and open themselves up to all kinds of
> nasty, nasty things.
As I understand it, mod_include is capable of includin
On Oct 28, 2007, at 4:12 AM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Paul Querna wrote:
-0.9 on enabling this by default in mod_includes. Make it
possible to
turn it on via httpd.conf, but never on by default
I agree.
And it should have huge warning signs, and a long descripti
Mads Toftum wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
I am not so sure. mod_proxy already supports client behaviour, and has the
bonus of using bucket brigades natively allowing zero copy natively.
That'd be true for serf as well, right? The whole point of getting
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> I am not so sure. mod_proxy already supports client behaviour, and has the
> bonus of using bucket brigades natively allowing zero copy natively.
>
That'd be true for serf as well, right? The whole point of getting
something into ap
Mads Toftum wrote:
The need for http client code seems to pop up every so often. I think it
would make a lot of sense to get a generic client lib in place (possibly
in apr-land), before bolting on another bit of client code.
I am not so sure. mod_proxy already supports client behaviour, and ha
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 12:20:47PM +, Nick Kew wrote:
> Well, it involved my own HTTP Client code (duplication) and
> in the case of SSI, a separate .
> (The duplication dates back to before I had commit here:-)
> Basically I want to eliminate that duplication.
>
The need for http client code
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:56:47 -0700
Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +0.5 in concept.
>
> -0.9 on enabling this by default in mod_includes. Make it possible to
> turn it on via httpd.conf, but never on by default
That makes sense. In fact, the patch already accomplishes that,
in the
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 02:32:31 +0200
André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Nick Kew wrote:
>
> > Our subrequest API currently handles only local subrequests,
> > so for example mod_include doesn't support
> > .
(The duplication dates back to before I had commit here:-)
Basically I want to elimi
On 10/28/2007 12:29 PM, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> Possibly mod_include should stop there, but "remote" subrequest are valuable
>> for other modules (e.g. mod_ssl and OCSP). So +1 to add this to the API,
>> -0 for enabling it for mod_include.
>>
>
> Does anyone have any
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> Possibly mod_include should stop there, but "remote" subrequest are valuable
> for other modules (e.g. mod_ssl and OCSP). So +1 to add this to the API,
> -0 for enabling it for mod_include.
>
Does anyone have any pointers how OCSP might be done using subrequests
in mod_
On 10/28/2007 02:32 AM, André Malo wrote:
> * Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> Our subrequest API currently handles only local subrequests,
>> so for example mod_include doesn't support
>>
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Paul Querna wrote:
-0.9 on enabling this by default in mod_includes. Make it possible to
turn it on via httpd.conf, but never on by default
I agree.
And it should have huge warning signs, and a long descriptive name
that does not invite to "let's try this and see if
Nick Kew wrote:
> Our subrequest API currently handles only local subrequests,
> so for example mod_include doesn't support
>
* Nick Kew wrote:
> Our subrequest API currently handles only local subrequests,
> so for example mod_include doesn't support
>
Nick Kew wrote:
Our subrequest API currently handles only local subrequests,
so for example mod_include doesn't support
Our subrequest API currently handles only local subrequests,
so for example mod_include doesn't support
21 matches
Mail list logo
