rotatelogs: support for echoing to stdout
Hi all, When processing logs in real time by more than one tool, it is useful for rotatelogs to optionally pass logs through to stdout for further processing by the next tool in the chain using reliable piped logs. This patch makes this possible. Regards, Graham -- httpd-rotatelogs-echo.patch Description: Binary data
Re: svn commit: r1040177 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c
Am 03.12.2010 15:26, schrieb Joe Orton: This is pretty ugly, please don't. If you think this warning from this compiler matters so much, set up some kind of CI system which alerts you when they are introduced. Littering platform-independent parts of the source with ugly #pragmas is not improving the quality of the source code in any way. agreed --> r1041905. Gün.
Re: svn commit: r1040177 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:52:06AM +0100, Guenter Knauf wrote: > Am 02.12.2010 10:39, schrieb Joe Orton: > >On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:37:49PM -, fua...@apache.org wrote: > >>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1040177&view=rev > >>Log: > >>Supress compiler warning. > >... > >>== > >>--- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c (original) > >>+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c Mon Nov 29 16:37:49 2010 > >>@@ -204,7 +204,12 @@ AP_DECLARE(int) ap_set_keepalive(request > >> * THEN we can be persistent, which requires more headers be output. > >> * > >> * Note that the condition evaluation order is extremely important. > >>+ * > >>+ * Silent compiler warnings for (r->chunked = 1) with #pragma > >> */ > >>+#ifdef __WATCOMC__ > >>+#pragma disable_message(105) > >>+#endif > > > >Eww. Do you really need to litter the source code with this stuff? Can > >you not flip compiler switches in the Makefiles? Regards, Joe > no. If I use a compiler switch it aplies for all source files which > is certainly not what I want - instead I only want to suppress this > one warning about assignment inside condition where the comment > states that its ugly but wanted, while at all other places the very > same warning is important and useful since you can just acciedently > miss a 2nd '=' where you dont want to assign but only compare. > I even expect to add more pragmas for other compilers, f.e. gcc, at > this place if we would compile with all possible warnings (maybe > -Wall is already enough). This is pretty ugly, please don't. If you think this warning from this compiler matters so much, set up some kind of CI system which alerts you when they are introduced. Littering platform-independent parts of the source with ugly #pragmas is not improving the quality of the source code in any way. Regards, Joe
Re: Follow the Windows shortcuts
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:27:35 -0600, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote: > On 12/1/2010 2:20 PM, Nicolas Joseph wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> To discuss about this bug: >> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50395 >> >> I found nothing about this bug. Why the option FollowSymlinks doesn't works >> on >> Windows with the shortcuts? >> >> The symlinks doesn't exist on Windows and create hard links is not trivial. > > Yes, symlinks now exist on windows. Shortcuts will never be > implemented, they > are not OS layer objects. Neither will cygwinlinks. > > Today apr/httpd recognizes Junctions as symlinks... whenever someone > gets around > to it, Symlinks will be similarly recognized. Thank's for this explanation.
Re: mod_ssl ssl_util_stapling.c warnings
On Tuesday 30 November 2010 00:55:48 Dr Stephen Henson wrote: > On 30/11/2010 00:03, Dr Stephen Henson wrote: > > On 29/11/2010 21:46, Guenter Knauf wrote: > >> I think that we had some similar already in the past, and you suggested > >> a change which was compatible with both 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 branches, but I > >> cant recall ... Or do we need to cleanly solve this with some > >> version-depent defines? > > > > See of the patch for bug #50121 resolves this for you. > > There's a slightly cleaner way of doing that r1040366 in trunk fixes it for > me. > > Steve. Steve, thanks for cleaning and applying my patch. A quick question, if I may... Would it be possible to make OCSP Stapling enabled by default (when the server certificate contains an OCSP Responder URL in the AIA extension) instead of disabled by default? (Perhaps "SSLUseStapling" could be replaced by "SSLDisableStapling") I just wonder how many webmasters would bother to add "SSLUseStapling on" to their config files, even though OCSP Stapling benefits all parties. I understand that Microsoft IIS 7.x enables OCSP Stapling by default. Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online
Re: svn commit: r1040177 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c
On Friday 03 December 2010 09:52:06 Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 02.12.2010 10:39, schrieb Joe Orton:
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:37:49PM -, fua...@apache.org wrote:
> >> +#ifdef __WATCOMC__
> >> +#pragma disable_message(105)
> >> +#endif
> >
> > Eww. Do you really need to litter the source code with this stuff?
> > Can you not flip compiler switches in the Makefiles? Regards, Joe
>
> no. If I use a compiler switch it aplies for all source files which is
> certainly not what I want - instead I only want to suppress this one
> warning about assignment inside condition where the comment states that
> its ugly but wanted, while at all other places the very same warning is
> important and useful since you can just acciedently miss a 2nd '='
> where you dont want to assign but only compare.
> I even expect to add more pragmas for other compilers, f.e. gcc, at
> this place if we would compile with all possible warnings (maybe -Wall
> is already enough).
I recently stumbled upon that big condition and ran away screaming.
Wouldn't it be better just to refactor it so it is better to read and
debug? Some thing like the following (untested, just hacked down)
shouldn't be more inefficient and even shows that some cases like the
check for HTTP/1.1 is done twice and could be factored out. It also shows
when the chunked flag is actually set (because the last check is never
evaluated if all the other or'ed stuff is already true, if I got this
right).
8<
int ka = 1;
ka &&= r->connection->keepalive != AP_CONN_CLOSE;
ka &&= !r->expecting_100;
if (!((r->status == HTTP_NOT_MODIFIED)
|| (r->status == HTTP_NO_CONTENT)
|| !r->expecting_100
|| r->header_only
|| apr_table_get(r->headers_out, "Content-Length")
|| ap_find_last_token(r->pool,
apr_table_get(r->headers_out, "Transfer-Encoding"),
"chunked"))) {
if (r->proto_num >= HTTP_VERSION(1,1)) {
r->chunked = 1;
}
else {
ka = 0;
}
}
ka &&= r->server->keep_alive;
ka &&= r->server->keep_alive_timeout > 0;
ka &&= (r->server->keep_alive_max == 0) || (left > 0);
ka &&= !ap_status_drops_connection(r->status);
ka &&= !wimpy;
ka &&= !ap_find_token(r->pool, conn, "close");
ka &&= (!apr_table_get(r->subprocess_env, "nokeepalive")
|| apr_table_get(r->headers_in, "Via"));
ka && ((ka_sent = ap_find_token(r->pool, conn, "keep-alive"))
|| (r->proto_num >= HTTP_VERSION(1,1)));
ka &&= is_mpm_running());
if (ka) { //...
8<
Cheers,
Malte
Re: svn commit: r1040177 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c
Am 02.12.2010 10:39, schrieb Joe Orton: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:37:49PM -, fua...@apache.org wrote: URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1040177&view=rev Log: Supress compiler warning. ... == --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c (original) +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c Mon Nov 29 16:37:49 2010 @@ -204,7 +204,12 @@ AP_DECLARE(int) ap_set_keepalive(request * THEN we can be persistent, which requires more headers be output. * * Note that the condition evaluation order is extremely important. + * + * Silent compiler warnings for (r->chunked = 1) with #pragma */ +#ifdef __WATCOMC__ +#pragma disable_message(105) +#endif Eww. Do you really need to litter the source code with this stuff? Can you not flip compiler switches in the Makefiles? Regards, Joe no. If I use a compiler switch it aplies for all source files which is certainly not what I want - instead I only want to suppress this one warning about assignment inside condition where the comment states that its ugly but wanted, while at all other places the very same warning is important and useful since you can just acciedently miss a 2nd '=' where you dont want to assign but only compare. I even expect to add more pragmas for other compilers, f.e. gcc, at this place if we would compile with all possible warnings (maybe -Wall is already enough). Gün.
