On 03/13/2013 02:50 AM, Gregg Smith wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I'm seeing segfaults on that dreadful Windows OS when using
LuaMapHandler LuaRoot together.
Not to worry, I'm seeing seeing this on trunk as well, so it's not your
backport per se.
Some likely useless info:
Here is the patch that strips the no-cache= or private= specified
headers after the origin server's validation, leaving the only headers
updated by the origin.
Regards,
Yann.
Index: modules/cache/cache_storage.c
===
---
On 11 Mar 2013, at 12:50 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
The way I read the spec, the specified field-name(s) MUST NOT be sent in
the response to a subsequent request without successful revalidation with
the origin server. What this means is that if the specified field names are
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 12:50 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
The way I read the spec, the specified field-name(s) MUST NOT be sent in
the response to a subsequent request without successful revalidation with
the
On 13 Mar 2013, at 7:27 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
How would the origin invalidate a Set-Cookie, with an empty one ?
I would imagine with a 200 OK.
Roy would be able to confirm.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
How would the origin invalidate a Set-Cookie, with an empty one ?
Regards,
Yann.
Set it again, with an in the past expiry date.
Cheers
Tom
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 13 Mar 2013, at 7:27 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
How would the origin invalidate a Set-Cookie, with an empty one ?
I would imagine with a 200 OK.
Roy would be able to confirm.
Well, I can't see the
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Tom Evans tevans...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
How would the origin invalidate a Set-Cookie, with an empty one ?
Regards,
Yann.
Set it again, with an in the past expiry date.
Well, that's
On 3/13/2013 4:44 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
On 03/13/2013 02:50 AM, Gregg Smith wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I'm seeing segfaults on that dreadful Windows OS when using
LuaMapHandler LuaRoot together.
The backtrace was actually quite helpful :) It would appear that the bug
(perhaps) pre-dates my work on
On 03/13/2013 08:39 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
On 3/13/2013 4:44 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
On 03/13/2013 02:50 AM, Gregg Smith wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I'm seeing segfaults on that dreadful Windows OS when using
LuaMapHandler LuaRoot together.
The backtrace was actually quite helpful :) It would
On 13 Mar 2013, at 17:41, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Tom Evans tevans...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
How would the origin invalidate a Set-Cookie, with an empty one ?
Regards,
Note that there is some macro magic in http_log.h that does this
automatically on C99 compilers. There is nothing wrong with doing the
check explicitly, and it is definitely a good idea if the saved function
call is very expensive. But in general other improvements may have more
impact and
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Tim Bannister is...@jellybaby.net wrote:
Is this the situation you're worried about:
ClientA: GET /foo HTTP/1.1
ReverseProxy: GET /foo HTTP/1.1
Origin: HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Origin: Set-Cookie: data=AA
Origin: Cache-Control: private=Set-Cookie
ReverseProxy:
My goal was to check for useless memory allocation when calling logging
function.
Logging with TRACE is unlikely to output something on a production
machine. However, function called as parameters of the logging function
will still be called.
I made a check on the whole source code to check
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Nce Rt nce...@yahoo.com wrote:
here is one of the past emails:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Nce Rt nce...@yahoo.com wrote:
A custom handler which is registered to run APR_HOOK_FIRST has these fields
null when processing http request:
r-content_type,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Hoang Vu Dang dang@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
Is there any limit of the size of a message log entry? How to control this ?
I did this:
ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, 0, f-r,
Yes I am sure I can't find other entries related to that request.
How to find whether I used PIPE_BUF and how to increase that BUF size ?
On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Hoang Vu Dang dang@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
Is
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Hoang-Vu Dang wrote:
I traced this into the Apache source code (ver 2.4.4). It looks like the
error message string is really limited by the size of 8KB.
This line is in server/log.c:1097
static void log_error_core(const char *file, int line, int
well, I do not buy the idea of security reasons, but I agree with your last
sentence that they do not see the need to make this a configurable option,
the error log does not need it.
regarding my purpose: mod_dumpio dumps data into the error log file in
chunks, I want to merge them if the message
19 matches
Mail list logo
