mod_python as a mod_dav backend

2006-01-30 Thread Matt Carpenter
Hi, Not sure if this is best posted here, or to mod_dav mailing list. But here goes. Has anyone looked at using mod_python to backend mod_dav, with a similar usage to FUSE's python binding. Basically mod_dav_python. Thanks, Matt -- Matt Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] FCP Internet LTD Unit 3,

Re: mod_python as a mod_dav backend

2006-01-30 Thread Matt Carpenter
Graham Dumpleton wrote: Others may know what you are talking about, but I plead ignorance. Can you perhaps describe further what you are talking about, how it would be used etc. A URL to stuff that could be read to understand similar things would also help. Graham What I am

Re: Segfaults in ConnectionHander FreeBSD (was Re: 3.2.6 test period - how long do we wait?)

2006-01-30 Thread David Fraser
Jim Gallacher wrote: Barry Pederson wrote: I think this is the general kind of thing we're looking for though, with some mistaken pointer/memory operation. Too bad we can't write *everything* in python. :( You haven't been following PyPy then? :-) David

Re: 3.2.6 test period - how long do we wait?

2006-01-30 Thread Jim Gallacher
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Graham Dumpleton wrote: buffer += bufsize; On a second thought - yes, you're right :-) And if he's not then there is a bug in filter_read since that is what it does and it is very similar to _conn_read. Jim

Re: mod_python as a mod_dav backend

2006-01-30 Thread Graham Dumpleton
On 30/01/2006, at 9:11 PM, Matt Carpenter wrote: Hi, Not sure if this is best posted here, or to mod_dav mailing list. But here goes. Has anyone looked at using mod_python to backend mod_dav, with a similar usage to FUSE's python binding. Basically mod_dav_python. Others may know what

Re: Segfaults in ConnectionHander

2006-01-30 Thread Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy
This may be a good question to post to dev@httpd.apache.org Grisha On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Graham Dumpleton wrote: Getting a bit closer now, have next part of puzzle worked out. Graham Dumpleton wrote .. This is starting to look really ugly. In _conn_read(), it first creates a bucket brigade

Re: Segfaults in ConnectionHander (Possible Solution)

2006-01-30 Thread Graham Dumpleton
Graham Dumpleton wrote .. Returning back up to _conn_read() in mod_python source code, we have where core_input_filter() was called ap_get_brigade(): Py_BEGIN_ALLOW_THREADS; rc = ap_get_brigade(c-input_filters, bb, mode, APR_BLOCK_READ, bufsize); Py_END_ALLOW_THREADS;

Re: Segfaults in ConnectionHander (Possible Solution)

2006-01-30 Thread Graham Dumpleton
Graham Dumpleton wrote .. Extending the above code as: Py_BEGIN_ALLOW_THREADS; rc = ap_get_brigade(c-input_filters, bb, mode, APR_BLOCK_READ, bufsize); Py_END_ALLOW_THREADS; if (! APR_STATUS_IS_SUCCESS(rc)) { PyErr_SetObject(PyExc_IOError,

Re: Segfaults in ConnectionHander

2006-01-30 Thread Jim Gallacher
Jim Gallacher wrote: Graham Dumpleton wrote: What I might speculate is that if the test in mod_python for the connection handler is setup to run on a secondary listener port, but with the primary still active, that it may trigger the problem on other systems like Linux. Jim, you might want to

Re: contribution to mod_python: Apache + SimpleXMLRPCServer (fwd)

2006-01-30 Thread Graham Dumpleton
An initial few comments from a first pass through. def _write(self, request, response, content_type='text/xml'): request.send_http_header() request.content_type = content_type request.write(response) This is technically wrong, although it doesn't matter on mod_python