Re: mod_fcgid license questions

[pqf]

Hi, all
I have signed the two documents( 
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt and 
http://www.apache.org/licenses/iclas), and emailed the scan version to 
secretary at apache.org.
So what I should do next is? Should I contact all major contributors and 
ask for the agreement to this: 
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt. Or I just  identify all the 
major contributors and wait for next step? Anything I can do please let me know 
:)

Thanks 



- Original Message - 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." 
To: ; "Ryan pan" 
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: mod_fcgid license questions


> pqf wrote:
>> Hi, guys
>> Nice to meet you :) I hope I can help to clarify the questions.
> 
> Likewise :)
> 
>>>When you wrote mod_fcgid, was there any code which you borrowed
>>>from mod_fastcgi?
>> No. I didn't borrow any code from mod_fastcgi.
> 
> That's good - we are looking at the headers you use and the fcgi package
> liberal licensing (as opposed to the mod_fastcgi package).
> 
>>>Your current intention is for mod_fcgid to be available under
>>>the GPL version 2.0, correct?  Could you confirm that you wanted
>>>the GPL to apply to all the mod_fcgid code?
>> Yes, I confirm I wanted the GPL version 2.0 apply to everything.
> 
> So to clarify, you don't seem strongly married to any particular license.
> 
> Is the AL 2.0 acceptable and would you be willing to license it such, or
> offer a software grant under the terms of the AL 2.0?  See
> 
>  http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
> 
> we would also want to capture a CLA so that you can contribute your own
> ideas to the new code
> 
>  http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
> 
> Finally, if there are other contributors to the efforts, aside from the
> obvious simple bug fixes and maintenance, we would need their buy-in as
> well, and count on you to identify such people that have shaped fcgid.
> 
> Looking forward to this solution!
> 
> Bill
>

Re: svn commit: r726109 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/ssl/mod_ssl.c modules/ssl/ssl_engine_config.c modules/ssl/ssl_engine_io.c modules/ssl/ssl_engine_kernel.c modules/ssl/ssl_private.h

[Joe Orton]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 02:41:14PM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
> jor...@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: jorton
> > Date: Fri Dec 12 12:20:40 2008
> > New Revision: 726109
> > 
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=726109&view=rev
> > Log:
> > mod_ssl: Make the size of the per-dir-reneg request-body buffer
> > configurable, by popular demand:
> 
> Nice, now if we just grew apreq refactoring, we would gain request body
> disk-based buffering ;-)

Disk buffering here sounds like it would be a DoS attack waiting to 
happen.

> Question; if they present us the opportunity to present a 100 CONTINUE,
> can we perform the handshake first?  If so, should we just throw in one
> of our sneeky little env flags to allow allow the user to cripple this
> by client?

The buffering was never done if r->expecting_100 is true; I've not 
tested that specific case but it should work already.

Regards, Joe

Re: Memory leak with apreq_brigade_fwrite() ?

[Michael Koziarski]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> The "leak" of a bucket brigade into the pool shouldn't be
> noticable.  The problem with all previous releases is that
> apreq_brigade_fwrite would leak badly when dealing with
> spool buckets- the current RC/trunk should fix that problem.

yeah, we definitely noticed the leak in in 2.08.  With 2.10RC we're
still seeing a very very minor increase in the memory usage of our
apache works, but it could well just be white noise that we're
noticing because of that leak reference in the docs.

So am I correct in understanding that that bucket is only 'leaked' in
the sense that it's no longer needed, it's still cleaned up when the
pool cleans up?

-- 
Cheers

Koz

Re: mod_fcgid license questions

[Chris Darroch]

pqf wrote:


I have signed the two documents
( http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt and
http://www.apache.org/licenses/iclas), and emailed the scan
version to secretary at apache.org.



So what I should do next is? Should I contact all major contributors
and ask for the agreement to this:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt. Or I just
identify all the major contributors and wait for next step?
Anything I can do please let me know :)


  Thanks, Ryan -- that was fast!  :-)  I think first we probably
need to wait for the secretary to check the documents and let you know
if there's anything left to do with those.

  Beyond that, I think we're waiting for some consensus (if more
is needed) from httpd committers that they'd like to proceed, and
then, yes, I'd expect that while in the Incubator we'd hope for
your help in tracking down the major contributors.

  For the moment, though, I think we're just waiting for some
feedback from other httpd developers and especially those with
some experience of the Incubator process.  I or someone else likely
needs to draft and submit a proposal to the Incubator, for example,
as a next step.  Any thoughts here from other folks?

  One thing to note is that with Christmas and other end-of-year
holidays coming up things might move a little slowly for a couple
of weeks.

  Thank you again for your efforts!

Chris.

--
GPG Key ID: 366A375B
GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263  E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B

Re: mod_fcgid license questions

[William A. Rowe, Jr.]

Chris Darroch wrote:
> pqf wrote:
> 
>> I have signed the two documents
>> ( http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt and
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/iclas), and emailed the scan
>> version to secretary at apache.org.
> 
>> So what I should do next is? Should I contact all major contributors
>> and ask for the agreement to this:
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt. Or I just
>> identify all the major contributors and wait for next step?
>> Anything I can do please let me know :)

Yea; since all of your significant contributors (excluding simple
maintenance fixes and things that can't be copyrighted, such as data
or facts) assigned license as GPL, they need to relicense their work
as Apache License, sign a grant for their contributions or just file
an iclas and offer their patch(es) to this list.

How many are we talking about (in the significant category)?  The
easiest way probably depends on how many people, how easy they are
to contact, etc.

>   For the moment, though, I think we're just waiting for some
> feedback from other httpd developers and especially those with
> some experience of the Incubator process.  I or someone else likely
> needs to draft and submit a proposal to the Incubator, for example,
> as a next step.  Any thoughts here from other folks?

I'd prefer that we simply sponsor this effort under the httpd PMC here
at our project.

We have to file an IP code clearance through the Incubator, but that's
relatively simple (and a good part is finished already now that the
appropriate paperwork is filed with the secretary).

Does anyone feel that the addition of mod_fcgid should be driven through
the incubator?  Speaking first hand, it didn't resolve the shortcomings
of lack of community behind mod_aspdotnet, and didn't really give mod_ftp
the visibility it needed (and attracted once it graduated).  So for most
existing modules, I don't think it solves many of the problems we might
or might not face here at httpd.

Re: mod_fcgid license questions

[Ruediger Pluem]

On 12/16/2008 10:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Chris Darroch wrote:
>> pqf wrote:
>>

>>   For the moment, though, I think we're just waiting for some
>> feedback from other httpd developers and especially those with
>> some experience of the Incubator process.  I or someone else likely
>> needs to draft and submit a proposal to the Incubator, for example,
>> as a next step.  Any thoughts here from other folks?
> 
> I'd prefer that we simply sponsor this effort under the httpd PMC here
> at our project.
> 
> We have to file an IP code clearance through the Incubator, but that's
> relatively simple (and a good part is finished already now that the
> appropriate paperwork is filed with the secretary).
> 
> Does anyone feel that the addition of mod_fcgid should be driven through
> the incubator?  Speaking first hand, it didn't resolve the shortcomings
> of lack of community behind mod_aspdotnet, and didn't really give mod_ftp
> the visibility it needed (and attracted once it graduated).  So for most
> existing modules, I don't think it solves many of the problems we might
> or might not face here at httpd.

+1. I see no need to put it in the incubator, except for the IP code
clearance paperwork. So it seems that the above fast track through
the incubator to do just that should be enough.

Afterwards put it in trunk and lets see how we can 'merge' it with
mod_proxy_fcgi.

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: changing mod_wombat's name

[Brian McCallister]

Actually, -1

Calling it luau is begging for mass user confusion via misspelings in
the LoadModule directive.

How about:

ap_lua, moon, or just bite the bullet and use mod_lua

-Brian

2008/12/8 Justin Erenkrantz :
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Roy T. Fielding  wrote:
>> mod_luau  
>
> +1.  -- justin
>

Re: changing mod_wombat's name

[Graham Dumpleton]

2008/12/17 Brian McCallister :
> Actually, -1
>
> Calling it luau is begging for mass user confusion via misspelings in
> the LoadModule directive.
>
> How about:
>
> ap_lua, moon, or just bite the bullet and use mod_lua

Given that there could be a class of such scripting language modules
over time, why not:

  mod_script_lua

to make it more clear for what purpose it may be. Then fits in with
auth and proxy related modules having common prefix.

Graham

> -Brian
>
> 2008/12/8 Justin Erenkrantz :
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Roy T. Fielding  wrote:
>>> mod_luau  
>>
>> +1.  -- justin
>>
>

Re: changing mod_wombat's name

[Graham Leggett]

Graham Dumpleton wrote:


Given that there could be a class of such scripting language modules
over time, why not:

  mod_script_lua

to make it more clear for what purpose it may be. Then fits in with
auth and proxy related modules having common prefix.


+1.

Regards,
Graham
--


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: proxy_ajp connect timeout fix.

[Jess Holle]

Did anyone test this on Windows?

I ask as I am trying connectiontimeout=160ms as part of my Apache 2.2.11 
configuration and am getting a configuration error.  I get the same 
error with "ping" and other parameters which now use 
ap_timeout_parameter_parse().


My BalanceMember looks something like:

   BalancerMember ajp://localhost:8010 route=tomcat1 min=16 max=80 
smax=40 ttl=900 keepalive=Off timeout=9 retry=30 
connectiontimeout=160ms flushpackets=on


--
Jess Holle

Re: proxy_ajp connect timeout fix.

[Ruediger Pluem]

On 12/16/2008 11:17 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
> Did anyone test this on Windows?

I stumbled across the same issue on Red Hat AS 5 today.
Try to patch your APR with

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=727052&view=rev

from APR trunk. This should fix this.

> 
> I ask as I am trying connectiontimeout=160ms as part of my Apache 2.2.11
> configuration and am getting a configuration error.  I get the same
> error with "ping" and other parameters which now use
> ap_timeout_parameter_parse().
> 
> My BalanceMember looks something like:
> 
>BalancerMember ajp://localhost:8010 route=tomcat1 min=16 max=80
> smax=40 ttl=900 keepalive=Off timeout=9 retry=30
> connectiontimeout=160ms flushpackets=on

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: changing mod_wombat's name

[Ruediger Pluem]

On 12/16/2008 10:44 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> 2008/12/17 Brian McCallister :
>> Actually, -1
>>
>> Calling it luau is begging for mass user confusion via misspelings in
>> the LoadModule directive.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> ap_lua, moon, or just bite the bullet and use mod_lua
> 
> Given that there could be a class of such scripting language modules
> over time, why not:
> 
>   mod_script_lua
> 
> to make it more clear for what purpose it may be. Then fits in with
> auth and proxy related modules having common prefix.

+1.

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: changing mod_wombat's name

[Jorge Schrauwen]

wouldn't something like mod_lang_lua be better. Since not all future modules
could be script language.
Then again mod_lang_xx does look a bit odd.

~Jorge


On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Graham Leggett  wrote:

> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
>  Given that there could be a class of such scripting language modules
>> over time, why not:
>>
>>  mod_script_lua
>>
>> to make it more clear for what purpose it may be. Then fits in with
>> auth and proxy related modules having common prefix.
>>
>
> +1.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>

Re: proxy_ajp connect timeout fix.

[Jess Holle]

Thanks!

Ruediger Pluem wrote:

On 12/16/2008 11:17 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
  

Did anyone test this on Windows?



I stumbled across the same issue on Red Hat AS 5 today.
Try to patch your APR with

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=727052&view=rev

from APR trunk. This should fix this.

  

I ask as I am trying connectiontimeout=160ms as part of my Apache 2.2.11
configuration and am getting a configuration error.  I get the same
error with "ping" and other parameters which now use
ap_timeout_parameter_parse().

My BalanceMember looks something like:

   BalancerMember ajp://localhost:8010 route=tomcat1 min=16 max=80
smax=40 ttl=900 keepalive=Off timeout=9 retry=30
connectiontimeout=160ms flushpackets=on



Regards

Rüdiger


  

Re: proxy_ajp connect timeout fix.

[Jess Holle]

The errno assignments you added did the trick.

Unfortunately, I'm still missing the overall goal.  I have many proxy 
balance members like:


   BalancerMember ajp://localhost:8010 route=tomcat1 min=16 max=80
   smax=40 ttl=900 keepalive=Off timeout=9 retry=30
   connectiontimeout=160ms flushpackets=on

   BalancerMember ajp://localhost:8011 route=tomcat2 min=16 max=80
   smax=40 ttl=900 keepalive=Off timeout=9 retry=30
   connectiontimeout=160ms flushpackets=on

   ...

However, the error log says:

   [Tue Dec 16 17:32:*25* 2008] [error] (OS 10061)No connection could be made 
because the target machine actively refused it.  : proxy: AJP: attempt to 
connect to 127.0.0.1:8011 (localhost) failed
   [Tue Dec 16 17:32:25 2008] [error] ap_proxy_connect_backend disabling worker 
for (localhost)
   [Tue Dec 16 17:32:25 2008] [error] proxy: AJP: failed to make connection to 
backend: localhost

   [Tue Dec 16 17:32:*26* 2008] [error] (OS 10061)No connection could be made 
because the target machine actively refused it.  : proxy: AJP: attempt to 
connect to 127.0.0.1:8012 (localhost) failed
   [Tue Dec 16 17:32:26 2008] [error] ap_proxy_connect_backend disabling worker 
for (localhost)
   [Tue Dec 16 17:32:26 2008] [error] proxy: AJP: failed to make connection to 
backend: localhost
   ...
 

Each port (on Windows) still consistently takes right around 1 full 
second to reject. despite having set connectiontimeout to be 160ms.


Something seems to still be awry here as 160ms is significantly less 
than 1000ms...


--
Jess Holle

Ruediger Pluem wrote:

On 12/16/2008 11:17 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
  

Did anyone test this on Windows?


I stumbled across the same issue on Red Hat AS 5 today.
Try to patch your APR with

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=727052&view=rev

from APR trunk. This should fix this

I ask as I am trying connectiontimeout=160ms as part of my Apache 2.2.11
configuration and am getting a configuration error.  I get the same
error with "ping" and other parameters which now use
ap_timeout_parameter_parse().

My BalanceMember looks something like:

   BalancerMember ajp://localhost:8010 route=tomcat1 min=16 max=80
smax=40 ttl=900 keepalive=Off timeout=9 retry=30
connectiontimeout=160ms flushpackets=on


Regards

Rüdiger
  

Re: changing mod_wombat's name

[Greg Stein]

Yeah, that can be confusing with the natural language directives/concepts.

mod_script_lua
mod_embedded_lua  (me likee this one)

I'm also fine with just taking mod_lua. mod_luau doesn't seem bad, and
I don't think there'd be typos: the directives would probably be
LuaSomething anyways.

Cheers,
-g

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 14:28, Jorge Schrauwen
 wrote:
> wouldn't something like mod_lang_lua be better. Since not all future modules
> could be script language.
> Then again mod_lang_xx does look a bit odd.
>
> ~Jorge
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Graham Leggett  wrote:
>>
>> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>
>>> Given that there could be a class of such scripting language modules
>>> over time, why not:
>>>
>>>  mod_script_lua
>>>
>>> to make it more clear for what purpose it may be. Then fits in with
>>> auth and proxy related modules having common prefix.
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Graham
>> --
>
>

Re: changing mod_wombat's name

[Eric Covener]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> Yeah, that can be confusing with the natural language directives/concepts.
>
> mod_script_lua
> mod_embedded_lua  (me likee this one)

mod_core_lua?

-- 
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com

Fwd: Update on status of mod_wombat

[Brian McCallister]

The lua mailing list is also discussing mod_wombat and the name, hah.
Andre is very happy to yield the mod_lua name used in kepler to
mod_wombat :-)

-Brian

-- Forwarded message --
From: Andre Carregal 
Date: Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: Update on status of mod_wombat
To: Lua list 


On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Brian McCallister  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Jan Schütze  wrote:
>> But users will barely search for modwombat if they try to get a mod_lua.
>> First time I searched for it, I found the svn-folder of kepler which did not
>> really works at all. mod_lua is what one expects and fits nicely in the
>> default module-naming.
>
> Agreed, the problem arises from their being 37 extent projects named mod_lua.
>
> Personally, I prefer mod_lua.

AFAIAC, Kepler's mod_lua is no longer supported and mod_wombat would
be a great successor for it. From my point of view, feel free to use
"mod_lua" if you want.

Of course some other "mod_lua" may be against this... :o)

André

Re: Update on status of mod_wombat

[Brian McCallister]

Another suggestion from the lua mailing list, and not a bad one...

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Jeff Pohlmeyer
 wrote:
> Just a thought...
>
> The Apache PHP module is named "mod_php5" and a quick google search
> for "mod_lua5" returned no results here.
>
>  - Jeff
>

Re: Update on status of mod_wombat

[Greg Stein]

I think it would be a bad idea to tie it to a specific version.

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 19:59, Brian McCallister  wrote:
> Another suggestion from the lua mailing list, and not a bad one...
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Jeff Pohlmeyer
>  wrote:
>> Just a thought...
>>
>> The Apache PHP module is named "mod_php5" and a quick google search
>> for "mod_lua5" returned no results here.
>>
>>  - Jeff
>>
>