Re: mod_proxy_fcgi and php
On 4/22/06, Markus Schiegl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. Got distracted with
other things, etc.
From my limited perspective r->filename should be set to
"/opt/www/html/i.php"
Any ideas?
mod_proxy_fcgi is talking to an arbitrary socket that could correspond
to any file on disk, how would it figure out what to set r->filename
to?
The fact that PHP has settings you can tweak to make this work implies
to me that it's not a problem we need to fix...
While playing with mod_rewrite i realized it does not recognize fcgi as
scheme yet (1)
The following patch should solve this.
Index: httpd-trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c
===
--- httpd-trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c (revision 396157)
+++ httpd-trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c (working copy)
@@ -577,6 +577,9 @@
if (!strncasecmp(uri, "tp://", 5)) {/* ftp://*/
return 6;
}
+if (!strncasecmp(uri, "cgi://", 6)) { /* fcgi://*/
+return 7;
+}
break;
case 'g':
I'll look at getting this checked in, thanks!
-garrett
Re: test/zb.c
On May 8, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote: On 5/8/06, Sander Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Found on http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=80572&view=rev Does an archive of that apache-core mailing list mentioned above exist? Yes, it does. The first few years of archives of the httpd pmc mailing list are actually the archives of the old apache-core list. It's not public, but you're a member, so you should be able to read it. OK, found the exchange with Adam Twiss. At the time, Ralf got chastised for posting the exchange to a private list (which action was itself deemed correct) but then referring to that mail in a public commit message. I don't want to post that particular message on this forum for exactly the same reason. Do we have the grant language anywhere else? Should it be archived? Even if we drop zb.c from the tree, it still is the root of ab.c so perhaps we should keep the grant on file in some way shape or form. S. Do we need zb.c to be in our tree? Or can we declare it superseded by ab.c? If only to help out our friends over at Debian? I can't see why we'd need it... -garrett -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.temme.net/sander/ PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Dealing with Regressions
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:12:58AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On May 8, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > > >OK, we all know we get some embarrassing regressions in our new > >releases. PR#39490 in 1.3.35. > > That is an unexpected and unwelcome regression. If I had > known about it I would have vetoed the patch. I'd be willing > to actually release a 1.3.36 simply to address that. I don't think any of this should be unexpected. All of the recent 1.3.x/2.0.x regressions I can think of have been caused by adding new features. New features come at an increased risk of regressions - live with it, or stop doing it! :) joe
Re: Win32 binary port of Apache 2.2.2?
At 12:37 09.05.2006, you wrote: Maybe you overlooked it, there is a win32 .msi binary, see http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/httpd/binaries/win32/ Indeed! I must have overlooked it. Thanks! Sierk Sierk Bornemann | Hannover | Germany ICQ:221105136 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://sierkbornemann.de/
Re: Win32 binary port of Apache 2.2.2?
Maybe you overlooked it, there is a win32 .msi binary, see http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/httpd/binaries/win32/ Steffen - Original Message - From: "Sierk Bornemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:05 Subject: Win32 binary port of Apache 2.2.2? Is there any reason, why the win32 binary port (Installer, .msi file) of Apache2.2.2 delays or is hold back again? Sierk Sierk Bornemann | Hannover | Germany ICQ:221105136 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://sierkbornemann.de/
Win32 binary port of Apache 2.2.2?
Is there any reason, why the win32 binary port (Installer, .msi file) of Apache2.2.2 delays or is hold back again? Sierk Sierk Bornemann | Hannover | Germany ICQ:221105136 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://sierkbornemann.de/
Re: Problem with mod_cgid and large POST queries
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:45:20AM +0530, Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote: > If I use TCP socket instead of the default unix doman socket for the > Scriptsock directive, How are you doing that? Are you hacking the source? > before httpd can send it all of the data. But the CGI process has sent > out the Content Length and another message expected of it to the > httpd. Httpd while reading the pipe that it has with the CGI script > reads the data sent by the CGI process. However, the next read() fails > because with an ECONNRESET. If it's hanging around doing nothing for a while, then your kernel will usually kill a TCP socket after some default keepalive time. Seems reasonable. > Given that the CGI process has done what > is expected of it and that the response has reached httpd, isnt this a > bug with mod_cgid ? IMO, ECONNRESET should be ignored in this case and > the response should reach the client. How exactly is mod_cgid supposed to re-establish a connection with the CGI? -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
