Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 11:15:41AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
Here's a new version of the get_offset patch that initializes
the TZ offset from apr_initialize. I've attached the new include
file that it uses, apr/include/arch/unix/internal_time.h
Out of curiosity, what happens
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 11:15:41AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
Here's a new version of the get_offset patch that initializes
the TZ offset from apr_initialize. I've attached the new include
file that it uses, apr/include/arch/unix/internal_time.h
Out of curiosity, what happens
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:16:42PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 11:15:41AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
Here's a new version of the get_offset patch that initializes
the TZ offset from apr_initialize. I've attached the new include
file that it uses,
At 07:36 PM 08/28/2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:16:42PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
As far as I can tell, the result of the calculation should be
independent of daylight savings (e.g., always 5 for US/Eastern).
Then the calculation must be wrong, since EDT is -0400. EST
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 08:45:39PM +1000, Luke Howard wrote:
The URL:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/security/hh/secpack/customsecfunctions_9js1.asp
is worth a look as it describes the API used to retrieve the
authorization data for a user and create an
At 10:05 AM 08/29/2001, William A Rowe wrote:
At 07:36 PM 08/28/2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:16:42PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
As far as I can tell, the result of the calculation should be
independent of daylight savings (e.g., always 5 for
US/Eastern).
Then
- Forwarded message from Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:26:47 -0400
From: Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Luke Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
On Sun, 2001-08-26 at 01:52, Greg Stein wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 06:27:23PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
does anyone have any objections to this?
all it is really doing is removing the MACRO definitions
and splitting up the apr_dbm into 4 files (a interface, and 3
implementations)
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 10:50:12AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
My only other comment, is that while doing development, it would be REALLY
cool if we could have access to both API's, which should end up pointing to
the same implementation.
+1 *if* we keep both APIs. Otherwise, +0 - I'm not
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 11:28:04AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
We should only keep both API's for the short term. Any API that we release
in a beta we need to support forever, so I am VERY much against releasing
a beta with the old locking API, because it is a very poor API.
I have fundamental
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just started playing with /error/HTTP_NOT_FOUND.html.var at
OtherBill's suggestion. Even with this patch, the seek back to the end
of the de body is not going to the right place.
gotta read some code...
I know the patch is a big improvement and it
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 10:19:40AM -0400, Greg Marr wrote:
At 10:05 AM 08/29/2001, William A Rowe wrote:
At 07:36 PM 08/28/2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:16:42PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
As far as I can tell, the result of the calculation should be
independent
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 10:19:40AM -0400, Greg Marr wrote:
At 10:05 AM 08/29/2001, William A Rowe wrote:
At 07:36 PM 08/28/2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:16:42PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
As far as I can tell, the result of the calculation should be
13 matches
Mail list logo
