On Sat, 31 Jul 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Yet, I'm not sure I understand the intent of your proposal. Is it that you
don't like the fact that each filter has to make a decision on whether it
should stick around?
Essentially, yes. We already have a double-digit number of content
filters
While at OSCON last week, Madhu and I had a chat about mod_cache - and how
Zeus is beating httpd 2.x all over the place because they cache and we still
don't by default and about how poor a job mod_cache is doing in the real
world. Madhu has a bunch of gprof numbers that he said he'll be posting
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 8:24 AM +0100 Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what 'match' is in this context.
In the above case, it could be text/html or latin1.
ap_register_smart_filter(transcode, latin1, charset_filter, ctx,
flags); ap_register_smart_filter(process, text/html,
--On Friday, July 16, 2004 11:29 PM -0400 Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
I don't understand why mod_cache forcedly avoids caching URLs ending
with the / (slash) character.
Yah, when I went through mod_cache tonight, I tossed that same code, too. I
agree that it
Oops... gone trough different email, so reposting.
Hi,
Not a very 'critical' patch, but enables building mod_proxy on 2.0-HEAD (if
someone finds that usefull).
Since 2.1 has some nice features (will have more hopefully) here is the
patch that enables that.
Index: proxy_util.c
--On Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:21 AM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Body/content generation or transformation should not be contending with
these issues you raised above. It's not unreasonable to expect some
metadata to pass through or be transformed (such as a content
--On Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:35 AM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The confusion results because mod_proxy isn't implemented as a content
handler, it's a protocol handler in its own right. Rather than insist on the
mod_http mod_proxy agreeing to streamline the response,
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 8:24 AM +0100 Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what 'match' is in this context.
In the above case, it could be text/html or latin1.
ap_register_smart_filter(transcode, latin1, charset_filter, ctx,
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 10:54 AM +0100 Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(btw, if you think AP_FTYPE_RESOURCE should be AP_FTYPE_CONTENT_SET,
that's another weakness of the architecture. If we need to transcode
*before* a content filter, then we can't use CONTENT_SET.
Solution: this needs to
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:26 AM +0200 Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-if ((rv = apr_socket_create(newsock, backend_addr-family,
+#if (APR_VERSION_MAJOR 0)
+if ((rv = apr_socket_create(
+#else
+if ((rv = apr_socket_create_ex(
+#endif
+
--On Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:19 PM +0200 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the old outdated NCSA config directives? We add and add and add code -- which
is not actually bad. But where's the man with the broom?
Sounds a like job for someone. How about nominating modules for removal in
2.1, or
Great idea, Nick.
By the way: Is it possible to integrate it with mod_rewrite, of course
after extending mod_rewrite a little? This may save us the need to
invent new directives (e.g. FilterProvider, FilterDispatche, etc.).
After all, mod_rewrite has a very sophisticated system to define
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
-if ((rv = apr_socket_create(newsock, backend_addr-family,
+#if (APR_VERSION_MAJOR 0)
+if ((rv = apr_socket_create(
+#else
+if ((rv = apr_socket_create_ex( #endif
+newsock, backend_addr-family,
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Eli Marmor wrote:
Great idea, Nick.
By the way: Is it possible to integrate it with mod_rewrite, of course
after extending mod_rewrite a little? This may save us the need to
invent new directives (e.g. FilterProvider, FilterDispatche, etc.).
After all, mod_rewrite has a
* Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great idea, Nick.
By the way: Is it possible to integrate it with mod_rewrite, of course
after extending mod_rewrite a little? This may save us the need to
invent new directives (e.g. FilterProvider, FilterDispatche, etc.).
After all, mod_rewrite has
* Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:19 PM +0200 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the old outdated NCSA config directives? We add and add and add code --
which is not actually bad. But where's the man with the broom?
Sounds a like job for
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Sounds a like job for someone. How about nominating modules for removal
in 2.1, or at the very least split them off to an 'unmaintained'
distribution? We can leave them there, but boot them out of our 'core'
distribution. 2.0 saw the introduction of mod_dav and
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
Too many changes in one patch. Break this up into multiple consumable in 15 minute
patches and I'll review them.
Bill
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:25 AM -0400 Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Too many changes in one patch. Break this up into multiple consumable in 15
minute patches and I'll review them.
Okay. You asked for it. ;-) I wanted to let the patches sit overnight in my
head and then break
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:25 AM -0400 Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Too many changes in one patch. Break this up into multiple consumable in 15
minute patches and I'll review them.
* modules/http/http_request.c (ap_internal_redirect): Call quick_handler when
we do an internal
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:25 AM -0400 Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Too many changes in one patch. Break this up into multiple consumable in 15
minute patches and I'll review them.
* modules/experimental/mod_cache.h: Always use atomics.
* modules/experimental/mod_mem_cache.c:
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:25 AM -0400 Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Too many changes in one patch. Break this up into multiple consumable in 15
minute patches and I'll review them.
* modules/experimental/mod_disk_cache.c: Allow sendfile on cache bodies.
Index:
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:25 AM -0400 Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Too many changes in one patch. Break this up into multiple consumable in 15
minute patches and I'll review them.
* modules/experimental/mod_cache.c: Delay no-store check until saving.
(It's a corner case with
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:25 AM -0400 Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Too many changes in one patch. Break this up into multiple consumable in 15
minute patches and I'll review them.
* modules/experimental/mod_cache.c: Reduce logging in mainline case.
Index:
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:25 AM -0400 Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Too many changes in one patch. Break this up into multiple consumable in 15
minute patches and I'll review them.
* modules/experimental/mod_disk_cache.c (load_headers): Only validate that the
header file
From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PROOF-OF-CONCEPT?] logging memory used by an allocator
A couple of questions come up from an application perspective:
am I leaking memory? if so, on
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 03:18:47AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
My #1 vote is to throw mod_rewrite clear off the island. =) -- justin
Why is it so important to kill off mod_rewrite that this comes up from time
to time? Just take a look at the cvs history if you think mod_rewrite is
Mads Toftum wrote:
Why is it so important to kill off mod_rewrite that this comes up from time
to time? Just take a look at the cvs history if you think mod_rewrite is
unmaintained - Andre has been doing a great job on it and there's a fairly
large userbase too.
If you really wan't to take the
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 8:12 PM +0200 Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 03:18:47AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
My #1 vote is to throw mod_rewrite clear off the island. =) -- justin
Why is it so important to kill off mod_rewrite that this comes up from time
to
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 8:25 PM +0200 Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And if something is broken, wrong, bad code, incomplete, then submit
some patches to fix the problem! This is why we have peer review, so that
different eyeballs get a perspective on possible flaws in the code.
No,
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Don't kill module A, kill module B instead. I suggest we don't kill
anything which has evidence of being useful.
Agreed - I just felt a bit provoked by mod_rewrite always being the target
(and hadn't seen justins patch to
John Rowe wrote:
Please define canonicalize
If the same thing can be referred to by a number of different names and
the convention is that one is the one true, or canonical, name and the
others are mere aliases then canonicalisation (or canonicalization for a
non-Brit) is the process of
Stas Bekman wrote:
/**
* Install a custom response handler for a given status
* @param r The current request
* @param status The status for which the custom response should be used
* @param string The custom response. This can be a static string, a file
* or a URL
*/
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:17 PM +0200 Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The byte ranges aren't done for the benefit of the httpd itself, but rather
a potential multi tier backend supported by mod_proxy or mod_backhand.
Right now if you range request a big file, it will work - but not
(b) I omitted the unrelated fix which was part of your patch; care to
provide an explanation?
Sorry...
--
body = strchr(iov.iov_base, 0); // `body` would be `headers + strlen(headers)`
if (!body) {
return 1;
}
37 matches
Mail list logo
