Re: ssl advice? modssl vs. apache-ssl vs. ?
Hi there, On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Fred Toth wrote: I've just taken a quick look at the modssl site and the apache-ssl site. Does anyone want to comment on the pros and cons of these 2 approaches? Recently I installed mod_ssl for the first time and although it took several attempts to get things done in the right order (and by the right user:) there were no real difficulties. Haven't used apache-ssl so I can't comment on the relative merits, but if you read the mod_ssl docs the decision seems to be easy. Apache-1.3.19 mod_ssl-2.8.1-1.3.19 mod_perl-1.25 (DSO!) openssl-0.9.4 Linux_2.2.16 glibc 2.1.3 (*important*) HTH. 73, Ged.
Re: ssl advice? modssl vs. apache-ssl vs. ?
"G.W. Haywood" wrote: Hi there, On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Fred Toth wrote: I've just taken a quick look at the modssl site and the apache-ssl site. Does anyone want to comment on the pros and cons of these 2 approaches? Recently I installed mod_ssl for the first time and although it took several attempts to get things done in the right order (and by the right user:) there were no real difficulties. Haven't used apache-ssl so I can't comment on the relative merits, but if you read the mod_ssl docs the decision seems to be easy. Yea, took me a while to the first couple of times, especially when trying to create your own certificate or figure out how to obtain and use a real certificate. Apache-1.3.19 mod_ssl-2.8.1-1.3.19 mod_perl-1.25 (DSO!) openssl-0.9.4 Linux_2.2.16 glibc 2.1.3 (*important*) Why is using glibc 2.1.3 important? It works fine for me with glibc 2.2.2. I'm using the latest versions of openssl (0.9.6) and the Linux kernel (2.4.x) as well. I'm using Debian, things may differ on other (I'll leave it at that ;) distributions and operating systems. The modperl guide (perl.apache.org/guide) has sections on SSL servers as well. You can basically copy and paste the commands from there, I have done that. As for apache-ssl, sorry, I have no clue on that. I have tried using the debian package called 'apache-ssl', but had horrible luck with that. I prefer to 'roll my own' apache/mod_ssl/mod_perl mixes anyways though. -- Regards, Wim Kerkhoff
is Apache::Request upload-fh lazy or not?
Hi again,
Thanks to those who helped me with the install issue. I've mostly
resolved that, and now have a new question that seems much more
mod-perl-ish:
I have code that does essentially this:
sub handler {
my $r = shift;
$r = Apache::Request-new($r);
my $handle = $r-upload('filename');
my $fh = $handle-fh;
...
}
I'd like to write upload code that shows progress (via a fork and
refresh header trick - don't worry about that). What I'm wondering is,
by the time I get $fh above (or even by the time I'm in the handler for
all I know) do I already have the entire file uploaded, or is it done
lazily as reads are performed on $fh? I'm not very good at reading this
XS stuff, but I looked at libapreq and from that I suspect it's all done
up front. Is there any way to read it incrementally?
Has anyone solved this problem before? I want to provide an upload
function for my web app that shows the user periodic progress or maybe
even allows them to cancel it part way through. Is this too much of a
reach for http/mod_perl?
Thanks in advance,
//Thomas
Thomas K. Burkholder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is Apache::Request upload-fh lazy or not?
* Thomas K. Burkholder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010414 04:28]: ... I'd like to write upload code that shows progress (via a fork and refresh header trick - don't worry about that). What I'm wondering is, by the time I get $fh above (or even by the time I'm in the handler for all I know) do I already have the entire file uploaded, or is it done lazily as reads are performed on $fh? I'm not very good at reading this XS stuff, but I looked at libapreq and from that I suspect it's all done up front. Is there any way to read it incrementally? Has anyone solved this problem before? I want to provide an upload function for my web app that shows the user periodic progress or maybe even allows them to cancel it part way through. Is this too much of a reach for http/mod_perl? AFAIK, the server doesn't even start processing the request until the entire file is uploaded. In the past (when it's absolutely necessary) I've popped up a tiny Javascript window telling the user to be patient (or whatever) while the file uploads. The returned page has an onload() handler which closes the window. It's not a progress bar, but it's something that hopefully prevents the user from getting impatient, clicking the browser's 'Stop' button and resubmitting the request. Chris -- Chris Winters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Building enterprise-capable snack solutions since 1988.
Re: is Apache::Request upload-fh lazy or not?
At 05:17 AM 4/14/01, Thomas K. Burkholder wrote: I'd like to write upload code that shows progress (via a fork and refresh header trick - don't worry about that). What I'm wondering is, by the time I get $fh above (or even by the time I'm in the handler for all I know) do I already have the entire file uploaded, or is it done lazily as reads are performed on $fh? I'm not very good at reading this XS stuff, but I looked at libapreq and from that I suspect it's all done up front. Is there any way to read it incrementally? Has anyone solved this problem before? I want to provide an upload function for my web app that shows the user periodic progress or maybe even allows them to cancel it part way through. Is this too much of a reach for http/mod_perl? I thought that using your mod_perl process to handle file uploads was a Bad Thing. You might want to think about using a domain cookie, and pass the client off to a lighter process to handle the upload, rather than having a giant mod_perl apache process spinning for five minutes while someone uploads a file. Just my $0.02. cheers, Todd
Re: ssl advice? modssl vs. apache-ssl vs. ?
I've just taken a quick look at the modssl site and the apache-ssl site. Does anyone want to comment on the pros and cons of these 2 approaches? Can mod_perl co-exist with either or both of these? All responses welcome, including "don't do it, go back, save yourself!". Don't know anything about modssl, I've been using apache-ssl + mod_perl for several years and am quite happy with the results. Currently up to: on 2 production and 1 development system apache_1.3.14 apache-ssl_1.42. mod_perl-1.24_01 openssl-0.9.6 Hope this helps Mod_perl development telecommuting available Michael
Re: ssl advice? modssl vs. apache-ssl vs. ?
* Michael Robinton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [14 Apr 2001 17:23]: I've just taken a quick look at the modssl site and the apache-ssl site. Does anyone want to comment on the pros and cons of these 2 approaches? Can mod_perl co-exist with either or both of these? [...] Don't know anything about modssl, I've been using apache-ssl + mod_perl for several years and am quite happy with the results. Apache/1.3.19 (Unix) PHP/4.0.4pl1 mod_perl/1.25 mod_ssl/2.8.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 Been happily working with various versions for the past year on the above machine and another one. mod_perl happily coexists with mod_ssl. Simple to install, simple to use. cheers, -- iain. http://eh.org/~koschei/ Be nice to your kids They will pick out your nursing home.
Re: ssl advice? modssl vs. apache-ssl vs. ?
Hi there, On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Wim Kerkhoff wrote: Apache-1.3.19 mod_ssl-2.8.1-1.3.19 mod_perl-1.25 (DSO!) openssl-0.9.4 Linux_2.2.16 glibc 2.1.3 (*important*) Why is using glibc 2.1.3 important? It works fine for me with glibc 2.2.2. I'm using the latest versions of openssl (0.9.6) and the Linux kernel (2.4.x) as well. I'm using Debian, things may differ on other (I'll leave it at that ;) distributions and operating systems. You need glibc 2.1 or later for full functionality, see the docs. if you're worried. You shouldn't be. Note that there are problems with 56-bit export versions of MSIE5.x and versions of openssl later than 0.9.4, which is why I haven't upgraded to 0.9.6. That's mentioned in the docs for mod_ssl. Worry. 73, Ged.
