Just got a quick question and no easy answer
over here @cnet we have a groups of a couple (10-50) of hostnames which provide
similiar content
but are slightly different (eg.. yahoo.cnet.com & news.cnet.com) and (
http://hotbar.cnet.com/ and
shopper.cnet.com)
now I was thinking that instead
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 03:54:39PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> "Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
> >
> > Good idea -- I was trying to keep the most relevant part of the name
> > at the front so that it is easy to find in the documentation, but
> > FileETagValue is better than the alternatives.
On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 06:42 , Eli Marmor wrote:
> Chuck Murcko wrote:
>
>> Also if the proxy is dechunking on its client side there will be no CL
>> to send...
>
> This is obvious. But this is already included in the rule: "there is no
> C-L when a filter that may change the size of t
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Our proxy doesn't use filters. It tries to create fake requests, but it is a hack.
> It writes directly to the socket occasionally, and even when it doesn't, it is too
> hard to follow what is actually happening in the proxy.
As I understand it we do use filters (but my unde
On Friday 30 November 2001 01:19 pm, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > Yeah, but that is one of the problems with the proxy right now. It
> > doesn't use the correct mechanisms for creating theham backend request.
> > If you remember, Danny Lopez asked for this ability a while ago, a
On Friday 30 November 2001 01:17 pm, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
> > Yes.. I was on vaction at the time
> > we also use the same feature danny asked for (a hook pre-proxy request)
> > We're there any objections to adding the hook?
>
> If what can be done with a hook can be done with
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Yeah, but that is one of the problems with the proxy right now. It doesn't use
> the correct mechanisms for creating theham backend request. If you remember,
> Danny Lopez asked for this ability a while ago, and we didn't implement it.
> In fact, I modified the proxy to use
Ian Holsman wrote:
> Yes.. I was on vaction at the time
> we also use the same feature danny asked for (a hook pre-proxy request)
> We're there any objections to adding the hook?
If what can be done with a hook can be done with a filter instead, we
should rather add the add-a-filter to the backe
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> The former (omit the ETag field from the response header) will
> require a MMN bump
Well, maybe not -- not if I don't mind polluting ap_send_header_field()
with knowledge about what it means and how to figure it out..
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwed
"Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
>
> Good idea -- I was trying to keep the most relevant part of the name
> at the front so that it is easy to find in the documentation, but
> FileETagValue is better than the alternatives. Actually, just FileETag
> (with one option being "none") would be best.
And how
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Friday 30 November 2001 10:34 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>>Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday 30 November 2001 10:24 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
>>>
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>On Friday 30 November 2001 09:55 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>>Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>>
On Friday 30 November 2001 10:34 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > On Friday 30 November 2001 10:24 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
> >>Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >>>On Friday 30 November 2001 09:55 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >On Friday 30 November 2001 03:42 am, Eli Marmor
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Friday 30 November 2001 10:24 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>>Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday 30 November 2001 09:55 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
>>>
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>On Friday 30 November 2001 03:42 am, Eli Marmor wrote:
>
>>Chuck Murcko wrote:
>>
>>
On Friday 30 November 2001 10:24 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > On Friday 30 November 2001 09:55 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
> >>Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >>>On Friday 30 November 2001 03:42 am, Eli Marmor wrote:
> Chuck Murcko wrote:
> >Also if the proxy is dechunking on its client s
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Friday 30 November 2001 09:55 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>>Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday 30 November 2001 03:42 am, Eli Marmor wrote:
>>>
Chuck Murcko wrote:
>Also if the proxy is dechunking on its client side there will be no CL
>to send...
>
Th
On Friday 30 November 2001 09:55 am, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > On Friday 30 November 2001 03:42 am, Eli Marmor wrote:
> >>Chuck Murcko wrote:
> >>>Also if the proxy is dechunking on its client side there will be no CL
> >>>to send...
> >>
> >>This is obvious. But this is already i
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Friday 30 November 2001 03:42 am, Eli Marmor wrote:
>
>>Chuck Murcko wrote:
>>
>>>Also if the proxy is dechunking on its client side there will be no CL
>>>to send...
>>>
>>This is obvious. But this is already included in the rule: "there is no
>>C-L when a filter that may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> copy the lib/ directory when installing a binary.
we have more work to do in this area. strace of a Linux binary shows it
looking for code in a path that only exists on my build machine. I
think we need to tell the loader to look in lib/, perhaps by setting
LD_PREL
Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 30 November 2001 06:46 am, Greg Ames wrote:
>
> They should be. The main thread is supposed to die, killing all other threads
> in the process.
Yeah... what we have now though is the pthread_join mumbo-jumbo.
I think that is necessary for cer
Greg Ames wrote:
>
> When did I say "graceful"? This idea is for "non-graceful" restarts.
> Today they aren't much different than graceful restarts, AFAIK.
>
My bad... I totally missed the 'non-' part... not enough coffee,
or maybe too much :) :)
--
=
On Friday 30 November 2001 03:42 am, Eli Marmor wrote:
> Chuck Murcko wrote:
> > Also if the proxy is dechunking on its client side there will be no CL
> > to send...
>
> This is obvious. But this is already included in the rule: "there is no
> C-L when a filter that may change the size of the res
On Friday 30 November 2001 06:46 am, Greg Ames wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Greg Ames wrote:
> > > > Non-graceful restarts
>
>
>
> > > >in threaded had the same problem worker has
> > > > today: no way to blow away threads which are serving long-running
On Friday 30 November 2001 04:19 am, Michal Szymaniak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > If you look at the worker MPM, you will see that it actually adds a pipe
> > to the listen_rec list, but it doesn't use a hook to do it. Can you
> > modify your code to use the pre_mpm hook, and let me know if that works?
>
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Greg Ames wrote:
> > > Non-graceful restarts
> > >in threaded had the same problem worker has today:
> > > no way to blow away threads which are serving long-running requests.
> >
> > Actually, an Apache'r who wishes to remain a
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Ames wrote:
> >
> > Greg Ames wrote:
> >
> > > Non-graceful restarts in threaded had the same problem worker has today:
> > > no way to blow away threads which are serving long-running requests.
> >
> > Actually, an Apache'r who wishes to remain
Just committed and bumped the minor magic number to account for fields added to the
end of
buff.h. Please review.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Mallory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Greg Stein'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 4:35 PM
Sub
Greg Ames wrote:
>
> Greg Ames wrote:
>
> > Non-graceful restarts in threaded had the same problem worker has today:
> > no way to blow away threads which are serving long-running requests.
>
> Actually, an Apache'r who wishes to remain anonymous had a novel idea
> for dealing with this: close
I admit that I let this slide, but it does seem a very useful
concept for 1.3 :) :)
+1 as well.
At 6:04 PM -0500 11/29/01, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>It's kinda crufty, but so are a lot of other things in 1.3. It is a small patch which
>is
>goodness and I appreciate what it is used for.
>
>If it is
Hi,
> If you look at the worker MPM, you will see that it actually adds a pipe
> to the listen_rec list, but it doesn't use a hook to do it. Can you modify
> your code to use the pre_mpm hook, and let me know if that works? Even
> if it does, we may need a new hook, because the pre_mpm hook
Hi again,
I tried both SIGWINCH and SIGUSR1, but apache
doesn't respond to any of them.
I am running apache as non-root and in single
process mode.
But when I tried with multi-process mode as root
and send signal, it restarts properly.
Is it the case that, in Single Process mode the
signals a
Chuck Murcko wrote:
> Also if the proxy is dechunking on its client side there will be no CL
> to send...
This is obvious. But this is already included in the rule: "there is no
C-L when a filter that may change the size of the response is onvolved";
After all, chunking is only a particular case
Also if the proxy is dechunking on its client side there will be no CL
to send...
Chuck
On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 11:20 , Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Thursday 29 November 2001 08:01 pm, Eli Marmor wrote:
>> Content-Length is not passed through proxy requests, when Apache 2.0 is
>> used as
32 matches
Mail list logo
