On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
>
> I think this really is a bug in our runtime. The flag was invented
> just for precaution, in case a module would rely on the no-copy
> behaviour. That is really close to saying: we will not fix
> any more
> I think this really is a bug in our runtime. The flag was invented
> just for precaution, in case a module would rely on the no-copy
> behaviour. That is really close to saying: we will not fix
> any more bugs in 2.4.x as someone could rely on it.
I don't think this bit is fair. Every config
> Am 23.12.2017 um 12:34 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>> On Sat, 2017-12-23 at 08:20 +0100, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>
Ugh. Fine for trunk, but that's a lot of complexity to foist on
a stable branch.
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-12-23 at 08:20 +0100, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>
>> > Ugh. Fine for trunk, but that's a lot of complexity to foist on
>> > a stable branch. A module would not only need to check MMN,
>> > but also implement fallback
On Sat, 2017-12-23 at 08:20 +0100, Stefan Eissing wrote:
> > Ugh. Fine for trunk, but that's a lot of complexity to foist on
> > a stable branch. A module would not only need to check MMN,
> > but also implement fallback behaviour if there are no flags.
> > So why not KISS and stick with that
> Am 22.12.2017 um 23:31 schrieb Nick Kew :
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:11:17 -0400
> Eric Covener wrote:
>
>> IIUC it should be safe to extend module_struct with a minor bump to
>> add 'int flags' to the bottom, but when you check the value you'd need
>> to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:11:17 -0400
Eric Covener wrote:
> IIUC it should be safe to extend module_struct with a minor bump to
> add 'int flags' to the bottom, but when you check the value you'd need
> to check the MMN first. In the module you'd then just have some flags
> or'ed
I added the 'flags' getter in r1809311, much cleaner, thanks!
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> Whoops I see you already folllowed it up.
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Yann
posticipate - realizing, while one writes a reply, that Yann has probably
already implemented it.
X-)
> Am 22.09.2017 um 14:48 schrieb Eric Covener :
>
> Whoops I see you already folllowed it up.
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
Whoops I see you already folllowed it up.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Eric Covener
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>>
>>> IIUC it should be safe to extend module_struct with a minor bump
The patches look great! Will test on next occasion! Thanks! :)
> Am 22.09.2017 um 14:02 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> On
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Eric Covener
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>>
>>> IIUC it should be safe to extend module_struct with a minor bump
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>
>> IIUC it should be safe to extend module_struct with a minor bump to
>> add 'int flags' to the bottom, but when you check the value you'd need
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> IIUC it should be safe to extend module_struct with a minor bump to
> add 'int flags' to the bottom, but when you check the value you'd need
> to check the MMN first. In the module you'd then just have some flags
> or'ed
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
>
>> Am 21.09.2017 um 13:35 schrieb Eric Covener :
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Stefan Eissing
>>>
> Am 21.09.2017 um 13:35 schrieb Eric Covener :
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Stefan Eissing
>> wrote:
>>>
Am 21.09.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Yann Ylavic
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 21.09.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>>>
>>> If the module defines its own
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
>
>> Am 21.09.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>>
>> If the module defines its own server_config_create() which allocates
>> one, each vhost will have its own, and the module's
>>
> Am 21.09.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 20.09.2017 um 12:33 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:09 PM,
Hi Stefan,
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
>
>> Am 20.09.2017 um 12:33 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Stefan Eissing
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there some better
> Am 20.09.2017 um 12:33 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>>
>> Is there some better way?
>
> I would go with the usual/unconditional per server config (and hence
> merging), trade
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
>
> Is there some better way?
I would go with the usual/unconditional per server config (and hence
merging), trade simplicity vs a few memory space...
Regards,
Yann.
mod_ssl's server_rec configurations (SSLSrvConfigRec) are shared between vhost
and base server *iff* there are no SSL* directives used inside a VirtualHost.
This is not really a good idea since mod_ssl modifies these recs in its
post_config hook. This looks currently harmless, e.g. setting
26 matches
Mail list logo