Re: Limited connectivity
Gotcha I'll hold off on the next beta until this issue is resolved for ldap. On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:46 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Just to let folks know, I won't be able to roll back our patches and > sandbox them until I have something resembling stable connectivity, > and it may be a day or two before that happens. >
Re: Limited connectivity
Should be nice also solve first: AcceptFilter issue, see post Windows 2.3.13 :: Win32DisableAcceptEx SSL issues rewrite, see post Win 2.3.13 :: SSL issues rewrite Then we can continue testing. The AH and AL communities want going to run 2.3/2.4 Steffen - Original Message - From: "Jim Jagielski" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.apache.devel To: Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Limited connectivity Gotcha I'll hold off on the next beta until this issue is resolved for ldap. On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:46 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Just to let folks know, I won't be able to roll back our patches and sandbox them until I have something resembling stable connectivity, and it may be a day or two before that happens.
Re: Limited connectivity
> SSL issues rewrite, see post Win 2.3.13 :: SSL issues rewrite Did you provide the traces offline directly to sf?
Re: [vote] mod_ldap
On 07/07/2011 08:44 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > On 7 Jul 2011, at 17:55, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > >> [ ] Revert to using apr_ldap (restricting mod_ldap to apr-util 1.x [2]) >> (binding both apr and mod_ldap to ldap libs) > > -1. OK for a hack, but not for a 2.4 release. Eat our own dogfood. > Can we really request the usage of APR 2.0 during the lifetime of 2.4 and drop the possibility to use APR / APR-UTIL 1.x? APR 2.0 might contain changed API's such that existing 2.4 code and external modules code build for 2.4 does not run any longer. Wouldn't that violate our binary compatibility rules for the lifetime of a stable httpd version? Regards Rüdiger
Re: [PATCH 51489] ProxyPassReverse issue + patch
On 07/08/2011 06:29 PM, Micha Lenk wrote: > Hi Apache developers, > > I'm using Apache as a reverse proxy in a simple load balancer setup. > I use ProxyPassReverse in order to re-write the backend server name in > HTTP redirections (ie. in the Location header of the HTTP response). > My configuration for the virtual host essentially looks like this: > > > BalancerMember http://server-1.local status=-SE > BalancerMember http://server-2.local status=-SE > > > ServerName frontend.local > > > ProxyPass balancer://196f045aca6adc82a0b6eea93ed286a1/ > ProxyPassReverse balancer://196f045aca6adc82a0b6eea93ed286a1/ Try ProxyPassReverse balancer://196f045aca6adc82a0b6eea93ed286a1 instead. Regards Rüdiger
Re: Limited connectivity
On Wednesday 13 July 2011, Eric Covener wrote: > > SSL issues rewrite, see post Win 2.3.13 :: SSL issues rewrite > > Did you provide the traces offline directly to sf? No. I think the idea was to fix the Win32DisableAcceptEx issue first, and see if it also fixes the SSL/mod_rewrite issue.
Re: [vote] mod_ldap
On 13 Jul 2011, at 16:54, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > On 07/07/2011 08:44 PM, Nick Kew wrote: >> On 7 Jul 2011, at 17:55, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> > >> >>> [ ] Revert to using apr_ldap (restricting mod_ldap to apr-util 1.x [2]) >>> (binding both apr and mod_ldap to ldap libs) >> >> -1. OK for a hack, but not for a 2.4 release. Eat our own dogfood. >> > > Can we really request the usage of APR 2.0 during the lifetime of 2.4 and > drop the possibility > to use APR / APR-UTIL 1.x? > APR 2.0 might contain changed API's such that existing 2.4 code and external > modules > code build for 2.4 does not run any longer. Wouldn't that violate our binary > compatibility > rules for the lifetime of a stable httpd version? I think we (including that vote) may have been at cross-purposes here. Subsequent discussion in various places leaves us with some plausible variants on that theme. I'd like to see 2.4 giving users the choice of APR version: 1.x or 2.0. I was voting against a (proposed) deliberate policy choice that would preclude using 2.0. I was not suggesting that we *require* 2.0 anytime in the foreseeable future! Having said that, it's been a while since I looked at the state of the build against different APR versions. Not been there since before LDAP blew up. -- Nick Kew Available for work, contract or permanent http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
Re: Limited connectivity
On 7/13/2011 1:41 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > On Wednesday 13 July 2011, Eric Covener wrote: >>> SSL issues rewrite, see post Win 2.3.13 :: SSL issues rewrite >> >> Did you provide the traces offline directly to sf? > > No. I think the idea was to fix the Win32DisableAcceptEx issue first, > and see if it also fixes the SSL/mod_rewrite issue. You mean the AcceptFilter feature ;-) Yes, that's on my plate, but I just got back some more effective connectivity. As soon as my work-work responsibilities are caught up, I'll take a deeper look at whats happening here.
