On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 09 Feb 2018, at 7:12 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> [Why] would you compare 8192 byte strings as identifiers?
>
> I just checked the code, and as I suspected the “name” field isn’t a name,
> or
On 09 Feb 2018, at 7:12 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:[Why] would you compare 8192 byte strings as identifiers?I just checked the code, and as I suspected the “name” field isn’t a name, or an identifier, it’s actually a URL prefix.When a balancer is found to match, the
Are there still plans to push for a 2.4.30 soon? There's a couple bug
fixes in it that I'd love to have in the official builds!
Thanks,
- Nic
On 2018/01/04 12:43:12, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> As we get settled into the new year, it seems a good time>
> to think about a 2.4.30
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> Another option for the name is to store a URL prefix length and a hash of
> the prefix. If the hash of the prefix matches, we have a match. Would this
> work, would it be too expensive to hash on every hit, would it be
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> For the hostname, the field only has to be 256 characters long (because
> RFC1035 says it must be) and that’s manageable. I have created a patch to do
> this and it works for me.
Is it checked-in (can't see it)?
On 2/9/2018 6:02 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
I will continue to work with you on this. The horrors I'm confronting
in other upstream projects... Ugh...
Please delete apr from your post to list. Unless they understand the
purpose of doing so, it is a stupid build chain to reference, an