Re: Testing mod_python SVN trunk with Apache 2.2 on Win32

On 15/02/2006, at 5:29 PM, Nicolas Lehuen wrote: Hi, I've built Apache 2.2 and tested mod_python SVN trunk with it. The two register_cleanup tests fail. Apparently it's because the test code registers a cleanup function giving the current request as parameter. Of course when the cleanup funct

Re: Testing mod_python SVN trunk with Apache 2.2 on Win32

Nicolas Lehuen wrote: Hi, I've built Apache 2.2 and tested mod_python SVN trunk with it. The two register_cleanup tests fail. Apparently it's because the test code registers a cleanup function giving the current request as parameter. Of course when the cleanup function is called, the request ob

Re: Testing mod_python SVN trunk with Apache 2.2 on Win32

2006/2/15, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Nicolas Lehuen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've built Apache 2.2 and tested mod_python SVN trunk with it. > > > > The two register_cleanup tests fail. Apparently it's because the test > > code registers a cleanup function giving the current request as > >

Re: Testing mod_python SVN trunk with Apache 2.2 on Win32

Nicolas Lehuen wrote: 2006/2/15, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Nicolas Lehuen wrote: Hi, I've built Apache 2.2 and tested mod_python SVN trunk with it. The two register_cleanup tests fail. Apparently it's because the test code registers a cleanup function giving the current request as

[SECURITY] A Security Issue with FileSession in 3.2.7

If you are using the recently released mod_python 3.2.7 please beware that a security issue was discovered in the FileSession code. You are vulnerable only if you are using mod_python 3.2.7 AND you are using FileSession to keep sessions. FileSession is new in 3.2.7 and is not enabled by defa

Re: Testing mod_python SVN trunk with Apache 2.2 on Win32

2006/2/15, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Nicolas Lehuen wrote: > > 2006/2/15, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >>Nicolas Lehuen wrote: > >> > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>I've built Apache 2.2 and tested mod_python SVN trunk with it. > >>> > >>>The two register_cleanup tests fail. Apparently it

Re: mutex dir?

Graham Dumpleton wrote: Hmmm, somehow I managed to vapourise an email, didn't even get to my sent mail box. Let me try this again. Jim Gallacher wrote .. Graham Dumpleton wrote: Correct, is actually done from the mod_python module init function. The only way one could have it dynamically ch

Re: Testing mod_python SVN trunk with Apache 2.2 on Win32

I have already noted that apache.register_cleanup() and req.server.register_cleanup() are prone to failure. The problem is that they are run in the context of a signal handler. See: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-109 I suggested in the JIRA issue that these functions may need t

Re: mutex dir?

Jim Gallacher wrote .. > > If the settings are going to be a generic key/value like in > > PythonOption, but only for purposes of the mod_python system itself, > > maybe it should be called PythonSystemOption. Prefer PythonSystemOption > > as "Module" is too confusing to me given you have both Apac

Re: mutex dir?

Graham Dumpleton wrote: Jim Gallacher wrote .. If the settings are going to be a generic key/value like in PythonOption, but only for purposes of the mod_python system itself, maybe it should be called PythonSystemOption. Prefer PythonSystemOption as "Module" is too confusing to me given you ha

Re: mutex dir?

Jim Gallacher wrote .. > > I have a better option (pun intended). :-) > > > > We do not need a new directive. Instead use existing "PythonOption" > > directive. > > That could work. > > > In the handler code for the directive, it can look at the > > value of the "cmd_parms->path" and determine i

Re: mutex dir?

Graham Dumpleton wrote .. > > How does req.server.get_options() differ from req.server.get_config(), > > which already exists? > > I still see what is in get_config() as special, ie., the values for > actual directives. Just don't think it is good to mix them. Looking at this further, the distinc

Re: mutex dir?

Graham Dumpleton wrote .. > Graham Dumpleton wrote .. > > > How does req.server.get_options() differ from req.server.get_config(), > > > which already exists? > > > > I still see what is in get_config() as special, ie., the values for > > actual directives. Just don't think it is good to mix them.