On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Martin Kraemer wrote:
I don't know whether Dean Gaudet is still lurking, maybe he knows
whether there are reasons which forbid the use of the
-DNO_SEM_UNDO alternative in apache itself. I was under the
impression that nobody implemented it yet, but it would be useful.
On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Go to any bogus URL (i.e. foo/) with the default config and you get:
[...]
What's this 506 error doing here? I'm sorry but I didn't really follow
all of the variant ErrorDocument threads. =-) -- justin
Check your browser config. You need to
I think that's the mod_include recursion tests that doug committed. We actually
_do_ want to recurse that way (in fact, the subreq file == the request file, only
the subreq sends a much smaller file bucket of just one body from the file.)
Partly, it should be solved by mod_neotiation assuring a
Why are we spending time trying to optimize pools when we haven't
eliminated the
malloc/frees in the bucket brigade calls? The miniscule
performance improvements
you -might- get optimizing pools will be completely obscured by
the overhead of the
malloc/frees.
Bill
Because it also
Why are we spending time trying to optimize pools when we haven't
eliminated the
malloc/frees in the bucket brigade calls? The miniscule
performance improvements
you -might- get optimizing pools will be completely obscured by
the overhead of the
malloc/frees.
Bill
I have a problem with the original question though. I don't understand why
anybody is trying to state that if people want to improve the pools code, they
shouldn't, because we use malloc in one place in the code. People are
free to work on whatever they want.
I am not being philosophical.
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Why are we spending time trying to optimize pools when we haven't eliminated the
malloc/frees in the bucket brigade calls? The miniscule performance improvements
you -might- get optimizing pools will be completely obscured by the overhead of the
malloc/frees.
I'm skeptical
From: Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 1:40 PM
I have a problem with the original question though. I don't understand why
anybody is trying to state that if people want to improve the pools code, they
shouldn't, because we use malloc in one place in the
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
I have begun to re-write APXS. The new version of APXS, will use the same
build system as Apache itself, which should make it a bit more flexible. As of
right now, we can query build time variables, but building is not working yet.
Since our
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From: Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 1:40 PM
I am not being philosophical. Sure, people can spend their time
doing whatever they want. I assume open source developers like to
see others benefit from
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 06:54:31PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
Okay... let's back up. I believe that some poor advice may have been given.
For now, let's assume that bPayload *does* have the entire content. Given
that, there is *no* reason to copy
Okay, I'll keep working on it, and only post patches as I finish the implementation.
I am very surprised that APXS is currently working for you though, because
it failed miserably as I tried to port mod_webapp. In fact, mod_webapp is my
test case. :-)
Ryan
On Saturday 25 August 2001 12:29,
I have begun to re-write APXS. The new version of APXS, will use the same
build system as Apache itself, which should make it a bit more flexible. As of
right now, we can query build time variables, but building is not working yet.
Since our current APXS is broken beyond belief, I am
This will break things. We will no longer be keeping track of the listener, which
is a bad thing. I will fix this later this weekend, but the worker MPM is broken
now.
Ryan
On Saturday 25 August 2001 18:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dougm 01/08/25 18:17:32
Modified:
On Saturday 25 August 2001 18:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
This will break things. We will no longer be keeping track of the
listener, which is a bad thing. I will fix this later this weekend, but
the worker MPM is broken now.
its working for me.
On 25 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rbb 01/08/24 22:26:05
Modified:.CHANGES
modules/filters mod_include.c
Log:
Add the ability for mod_include to add the INCLUDES filter
if the file is configured for the server-parsed handler.
This makes
16 matches
Mail list logo
