Thanks. Ruslan. In your roadmap (http://trac.nginx.org/nginx/roadmap), you
are working on the new status module. Will it be a more powerful status
module and can display the status with each virtual server.
2013/3/26 Ruslan Ermilov
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:22:44AM +0800, Weibin Yao wrote:
>
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:22:44AM +0800, Weibin Yao wrote:
>Hi, folks,
>I noticed the http status module in the auto/options script:
>227 --without-http_status_module) HTTP_STATUS=NO
> ;;
>But I can't find any source file with this module. Is this module r
Hi, folks,
I noticed the http status module in the auto/options script:
227 --without-http_status_module)HTTP_STATUS=NO ;;
But I can't find any source file with this module. Is this module reserved
for the http status module? Do you have any plan to implement it?
Thanks.
On Monday 25 March 2013 23:06:37 pgndev wrote:
> cd nginx-1.3.14
> patch -p1 < ../patch.spdy-70_1.3.14.txt
> patching file src/http/ngx_http_request.c
> patching file src/http/ngx_http_request.c
> patching file src/http/ngx_http_request.c
> patching file src/core/ngx_connection.c
>
cd nginx-1.3.14
patch -p1 < ../patch.spdy-70_1.3.14.txt
patching file src/http/ngx_http_request.c
patching file src/http/ngx_http_request.c
patching file src/http/ngx_http_request.c
patching file src/core/ngx_connection.c
patching file src/core/ngx_connection.h
patching file
Hello!
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 08:23:16PM +0400, Marat Dakota wrote:
> Yes, it is a part of the original request response generation.
>
> I'll have a look, thanks. Is there a place to read about
> NGX_HTTP_SUBREQUEST_IN_MEMORY and NGX_HTTP_SUBREQUEST_WAITED except
> for source code?
Probably no
Yes, it is a part of the original request response generation.
I'll have a look, thanks. Is there a place to read about
NGX_HTTP_SUBREQUEST_IN_MEMORY and NGX_HTTP_SUBREQUEST_WAITED except
for source code?
And is my current approach wrong even in spite of the conclusion that
it is the original requ
Hello!
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 07:41:16PM +0400, Marat Dakota wrote:
> >> >> >> But is it ok to call next body filter in subrequest's body filter to
> >> >> >> produce output to main request?
> >> >> >> I mean ngx_http_next_body_filter(r->main, out).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No. You should call next
On Monday 25 March 2013 18:41:28 Maxim Dounin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 06:15:56PM +0400, Valentin V. Bartenev wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 March 2013 08:04:24 Piotr Sikora wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > > attached patch changes "if" tests to use "== NGX_FILE_ERROR" instead of
> > > "==
Author: vbart
Date: 2013-03-25 15:49:11 + (Mon, 25 Mar 2013)
New Revision: 5138
URL: http://trac.nginx.org/nginx/changeset/5138/nginx
Log:
Use NGX_FILE_ERROR for handling file operations errors.
On Win32 platforms 0 is used to indicate errors in file operations, so
comparing against -1 is not
>> >> >> But is it ok to call next body filter in subrequest's body filter to
>> >> >> produce output to main request?
>> >> >> I mean ngx_http_next_body_filter(r->main, out).
>> >> >
>> >> > No. You should call next body filter of the request you are
>> >> > working with. It's postpone filter re
Hello!
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 06:46:09PM +0400, Marat Dakota wrote:
> >> >> But is it ok to call next body filter in subrequest's body filter to
> >> >> produce output to main request?
> >> >> I mean ngx_http_next_body_filter(r->main, out).
> >> >
> >> > No. You should call next body filter of
Author: ru
Date: 2013-03-25 14:51:44 + (Mon, 25 Mar 2013)
New Revision: 5137
URL: http://trac.nginx.org/nginx/changeset/5137/nginx
Log:
Upstream: removed rudiments of upstream connection caching.
This functionality is now provided by ngx_http_upstream_keepalive_module.
Modified:
trunk/sr
>> >> But is it ok to call next body filter in subrequest's body filter to
>> >> produce output to main request?
>> >> I mean ngx_http_next_body_filter(r->main, out).
>> >
>> > No. You should call next body filter of the request you are
>> > working with. It's postpone filter responsibility to ma
Hello!
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 06:15:56PM +0400, Valentin V. Bartenev wrote:
> On Thursday 21 March 2013 08:04:24 Piotr Sikora wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> > attached patch changes "if" tests to use "== NGX_FILE_ERROR" instead of
> > "== -1" or "!= NGX_OK", because NGX_FILE_ERROR is defined as -1 on UN
Hello!
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 05:52:53PM +0400, Marat Dakota wrote:
> >> But is it ok to call next body filter in subrequest's body filter to
> >> produce output to main request?
> >> I mean ngx_http_next_body_filter(r->main, out).
> >
> > No. You should call next body filter of the request you
On Thursday 21 March 2013 08:04:24 Piotr Sikora wrote:
> Hey guys,
> attached patch changes "if" tests to use "== NGX_FILE_ERROR" instead of
> "== -1" or "!= NGX_OK", because NGX_FILE_ERROR is defined as -1 on UNIX,
> but as 0 on Win32.
The patch looks good. I'll commit it as soon as Maxim acknowl
>> But is it ok to call next body filter in subrequest's body filter to
>> produce output to main request?
>> I mean ngx_http_next_body_filter(r->main, out).
>
> No. You should call next body filter of the request you are
> working with. It's postpone filter responsibility to manage
> subrequests
Hello!
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Marat Dakota wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this correction.
>
> But is it ok to call next body filter in subrequest's body filter to
> produce output to main request?
> I mean ngx_http_next_body_filter(r->main, out).
No. You should call next body
Author: ru
Date: 2013-03-25 13:41:30 + (Mon, 25 Mar 2013)
New Revision: 5136
URL: http://trac.nginx.org/nginx/changeset/5136/nginx
Log:
Upstream: removed sorting of upstream servers.
Sorting of upstream servers by their weights is not required by
current balancing algorithms.
This will likel
Hi,
Thanks for this correction.
But is it ok to call next body filter in subrequest's body filter to
produce output to main request?
I mean ngx_http_next_body_filter(r->main, out).
--
Marat
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 09:12:53PM +04
Author: ru
Date: 2013-03-25 13:38:59 + (Mon, 25 Mar 2013)
New Revision: 5135
URL: http://trac.nginx.org/nginx/changeset/5135/nginx
Log:
Mail: IPv6 backends (ticket #323).
Modified:
trunk/src/mail/ngx_mail_auth_http_module.c
Modified: trunk/src/mail/ngx_mail_auth_http_module.c
===
Author: ru
Date: 2013-03-25 13:16:55 + (Mon, 25 Mar 2013)
New Revision: 5134
URL: http://trac.nginx.org/nginx/changeset/5134/nginx
Log:
Upstream: removed double-free workarounds in peer.free() methods.
Modified:
trunk/src/http/modules/ngx_http_upstream_keepalive_module.c
trunk/src/http
Author: ru
Date: 2013-03-25 13:14:49 + (Mon, 25 Mar 2013)
New Revision: 5133
URL: http://trac.nginx.org/nginx/changeset/5133/nginx
Log:
Upstream: only call peer.free() if peer.get() selected a peer.
Modified:
trunk/src/http/ngx_http_upstream.c
Modified: trunk/src/http/ngx_http_upstream.c
Hello!
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 09:12:53PM +0400, Marat Dakota wrote:
[...]
> // We just put "bbb" to main response for each call of this body filter.
> return ngx_http_output_filter(r->main, out);
> }
It is very wrong to call ngx_http_output_filter() of a main
request from you body fil
I'm Zuwen Shi from China,I find a unescape uri bug in your program.
The source code location is src\core\ngx_string.c->ngx_unescape_uri
If I put a string "%%s%elect",it convert the string to "%slect",and %% to
%,%el to l,actually the right convert is "%%s%elect".
So,I patch the ngx_unescape_uri lik
26 matches
Mail list logo
