Re: mod_ssl in trunk with OpenSSL 0.9.7 as a minimum requirement?
Hi Kaspar, Am 07.08.2011 22:23, schrieb Guenter Knauf: Am 07.08.2011 12:49, schrieb Kaspar Brand: NetWare folks: please note that I didn't touch modules/ssl/NWGNUmakefile so far - i.e. it still allows building with the "Novell NTLS SDK" (in theory, at least). As I'm neither familiar with the NetWare platform nor do I have a test environment, I'd appreciate if the experts could have a look - and patch, if needed. Thanks! shouldnt be a prob - latest NTLS is based on OpenSSL 0.9.7m - so shouldnt be an issue; but I will check ... compiles without issue with latest NTLS, OpenSSL 0.9.8r, and OpenSSL 1.0.0d. Gün.
Re: websocket support for mod_proxy
On 09.08.2011 08:49, Greg Wilkins wrote: > Is there any plans to implement websocket support in mod_proxy. I > would think that it could be done pretty simply as a variation of > mod_proxy_connect, as once the HTTP upgrade is done mod_proxy can > treat the connection as a simple byte tunnel. > > I develop the jetty HTTP client/server which supports websocket and > would be happy to work with anybody developing mod_proxy_websocket to > provide a test environment. Another option would be something like mod_proxy_fdpass, namely once we observe a websocket is started, hand over the full connection via the file descriptor to some other dedicated websocket server. I haven't checked though, whether the mod_proxy_fdpass way of doing it would interoperate with a Java based websocket server. Note that mod_proxy_fdpass is part of the dev version Apache 2.3 which is currently in beta status, but we all think GA of 2.4 is not far away. When solving the problem similar to mod_proxy_connect, the web server would stay in the loop for the whole communication and it seems questionable whether there's any benefit for that - at least if a websocket server is running on the same system. If the websocket server is only available remotely from the proxy, then of course there's a need for a proxy for the whole duration of the communication, but again it is questionable, what the benefit of using Apache for it is. We could as well hand off to a general port forwarding mechanism. Greg: since you are part of the hybi discussion: do you see any benefit of having Apache in the loop after the initial websocket handshake? Regards, Rainer
[RESULTS] Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.3.14 as beta
+1 (binding): wrowe, sf, covener, rjung, jim +1 (non-binding): Gregg Smith, Mario Brandt +/-0: NULL -1: NULL The vote passes and httpd-2.3.14 will be released as beta! Thx! On Aug 1, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > The tarballs for httpd-2.3.14 are available at: > > http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ > > Please VOTE on whether to release these as Apache httpd-2.3.14, > beta. >
Re: websocket support for mod_proxy
On Tuesday, 09 August 2011 11:48:32 Rainer Jung wrote: > Another option would be something like mod_proxy_fdpass, namely once > we observe a websocket is started, hand over the full connection via > the file descriptor to some other dedicated websocket server. I > haven't checked though, whether the mod_proxy_fdpass way of doing it > would interoperate with a Java based websocket server. A recent modperl allows to do something along these lines even with httpd 2.0, http://foertsch.name/ModPerl-Tricks/req-hand-over.shtml Torsten Förtsch -- Need professional modperl support? Hire me! (http://foertsch.name) Like fantasy? http://kabatinte.net
Re: [RESULTS] Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.3.14 as beta
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi#apache23 - links are broken
Re: websocket support for mod_proxy
Rainer, On 9 August 2011 19:48, Rainer Jung wrote: > Greg: since you are part of the hybi discussion: do you see any benefit > of having Apache in the loop after the initial websocket handshake? I can see benefits of both approaches. If the fd can be passed, then that will give maximum performance. However, it is also likely that httpd will be run on a different system, so the proxy mode will be needed. Also, eventually there might be a role for apache to actually examine websocket frames to add value to them - eg implement extension for mux, ssl, compression etc. regards
Re: mod_proxy and modified headers in filters.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 15:20, Zaid Amireh wrote: > > On Aug 8, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Ben Noordhuis wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:29, Zaid Amireh wrote: >>> I'm writing a module for Apache 2.2 that changes the content and thus needs >>> to set a new C-L header, all is working perfectly for static files and >>> content generated from content handlers (PHP & Ruby Passenger Phusion), an >>> issue arose when testing with mod_proxy, it seems that any changes the >>> module does to the HTTP headers are being ignored by mod_proxy. >>> >>> mod_proxy keeps serving the headers it first got from the backend source >>> and disregards any changes my module does, is it possible to change the >>> headers in this case? >> >> Yes. Have a look at proxy_hook_fixups() in mod_proxy.h. > > I just tried proxy_hook_fixups and it runs even before the proxy gets the > content from the backend which is not what I need, I also tried the other > hook proxy_hook_request_status and this one runs after the content has been > sent to the client which means changing the headers in it will have no effect. > > I found proxy_hook_post_request which fits nicely to where I need to change > the headers but it is only executed when the backend sends an error so that > won't work as well. post_request should always run, excluding error conditions like bad requests. Maybe that behaviour has changed over time but I don't think so, most of the code in mod_proxy is pretty old. > Did I miss something here? > > Zaid
Re: [RESULTS] Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.3.14 as beta
On 8/9/2011 5:59 AM, Daniel Stefaniuk wrote: > http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi#apache23 - links are broken That's expected. Usually we also mention "Waiting on mirrors to replicate before sending the Announce"... that's what Jim was doing but he just forgot to say so :)
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd-2.3.13 as beta
Now as .zip, the binary 2.3.14 is available. - Original Message - From: "Mladen Turk" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.apache.devel To: Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd-2.3.13 as beta On 07/03/2011 02:21 PM, Steffen wrote: The candidate Windows binary is now available at: http://www.apachelounge.com/viewtopic.php?p=18457 Not that it belongs here, but may I ask why the .rar? Regards -- ^TM
Re: mod_ssl in trunk with OpenSSL 0.9.7 as a minimum requirement?
Hi Gün, thanks for testing! I was wondering if there's some way to check for OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER >= 0x0090700f in the NWGNUmakefile (similar to what is done in configure). Just in case someone tries to compile against stone-age versions of OpenSSL/NTLS... but perhaps this is a very unlikely scenario, so not worth bothering about. Kaspar
