Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:39:55PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > trawick 01/12/12 11:39:55
> >
> > Modified:.acinclude.m4 configure.in
> >support Makefile.in
> > Log:
> > change Apache/apr/apr-util to use run-t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> trawick 01/12/13 05:15:56
>
> Modified:include http_core.h
> Log:
> hack up core_dir_config so that server/core.c compiles again
OtherBill probably wants to check the data type and provide
appropriate commentary.
>
> Index: http_core.h
> ===
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> wrowe 01/12/12 21:49:28
>
> Modified:server core.c
> Log:
> Now all should be well. AcceptPathInfo on will give us a
> document with
> path_info served from the core handler. Any filters can then
> manipulate
Where would I find examples and docs for writing a filter that could...
examine and potentially re-write form variables posted by client
examine and potentially re-write url variables posted by client
create some new cgi variables and publish them
do all of this before any other request processin
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> wrowe 01/12/13 10:19:22
>
> Modified:docs/manual/mod mod_cgi.html mod_cgid.html core.html
> Log:
> A little loopy commit. Refer mod_cgid users to the mod_cgi docs for
> extra info, document the AcceptPathInfo impact in
From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:31 PM
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > wrowe 01/12/13 10:19:22
> >
> > Modified:docs/manual/mod mod_cgi.html mod_cgid.html core.html
> > Log:
> > A little loopy commit. Refe
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> . Hooks are _not_ the fastest things in the world, especially with the strcmps
> around ->handler going on.
Amen! This one has been bugging me for a long time. It won't show up
clearly in a profiler, because the CPU cycles are spread over all the
handlers.
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:31 PM
> > Just a loopy thought: Would it be useful to make the syntax
> > AcceptPathInfo On|Off|Default
> > where
> > AcceptPathInfo Default
> > was the s
This might also be a problem on unix but I haven't tested.
When cgi's are launched a window sometimes pops up, same for
mod_include "exec cgi". Is there a reason we are not
launching the cgi as a detached process?
Index: mod_cgi.c
=
On Thursday 13 December 2001 11:02 am, Allan Edwards wrote:
> This might also be a problem on unix but I haven't tested.
> When cgi's are launched a window sometimes pops up, same for
> mod_include "exec cgi". Is there a reason we are not
> launching the cgi as a detached process?
You definately
From: "Greg Ames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:49 PM
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
>
> > . Hooks are _not_ the fastest things in the world, especially with the strcmps
> > around ->handler going on.
>
> Amen! This one has been bugging me for a long time. It
From: "Allan Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:02 PM
> This might also be a problem on unix but I haven't tested.
> When cgi's are launched a window sometimes pops up, same for
> mod_include "exec cgi". Is there a reason we are not
> launching the cgi as a detache
Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 13 December 2001 11:02 am, Allan Edwards wrote:
> > This might also be a problem on unix but I haven't tested.
> > When cgi's are launched a window sometimes pops up, same for
> > mod_include "exec cgi". Is there a reason we are not
> > launchi
On Thursday 13 December 2001 11:05 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "Greg Ames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:49 PM
>
> > "William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> > > . Hooks are _not_ the fastest things in the world, especially with the
> > > strcmps around ->handler go
> > mod_include "exec cgi". Is there a reason we are not
> > launching the cgi as a detached process?
>
> Yes. They are broken for all 16 bit CGIs.
16 bit CGI's seem to be broken at the moment anyway.
> We need some mechansim to
> pass off the fact that we've tested, and it is a good, well b
From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:09 PM
> On Thursday 13 December 2001 11:02 am, Allan Edwards wrote:
> > This might also be a problem on unix but I haven't tested.
> > When cgi's are launched a window sometimes pops up, same for
> > mod_include "exec cgi
Dwayne Miller wrote:
> Where would I find examples and docs for writing a filter that could...
Read Ryan's series:
===
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/apache/2001/08/23/apache_2.html
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/apache/2001/09/13/apache_2.html
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/apache/2001/0
Hi all!
I´m having my websites working very slow... when TOP see what happens:
312 processes: 2 running, 309 sleeping, 1 zombie --->> See, I have 309
process sleeping
A lot of this appears to me:
38409 nobody2 0 18344K 2776K sbwait 0:02 0.00% 0.00%
httpd --->> SBWAIT??? J
From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:22 PM
> On Thursday 13 December 2001 11:05 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > Couple of bits. If we declare handler_fn identically to a hook_handler
> > callback, then we can maintain the semantics. A handler could
From: "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:17 PM
> what if we had a long-running-daemon attribute and a non-interactive
> attribute (yeah, please come up with better names):
>
> long-running-daemonnon-interactive
>
> Win32
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> > > If we resolve the ->handler up front, why not
> > > provide a ->handler_fn member that skips the entire handler() hook walk?
> >
> > The implementation would be interesting. Consider mod_dir and
> > mod_autoindex. Both can deal with DIR_MAGIC_TYPE, and bot
Several folks have reported success serving pages with 64 bit compiles of Apache 2.0
(AIX
and Solaris as I recall). Has anyone had similar success with 64 bit compiles of
OpenSSL?
Bill
Yep.. we've tried it out on HPUX on the IA-64 boxes - and verified that
"make test" works :-).
-Madhu
-Original Message-
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 64 bit compiles of mod_ssl & OpenSSL?
Severa
From: "Greg Ames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:55 PM
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
>
> > Second, autoindex should be a generator [handler]. mod_dir should _NOT_. I
>spelled
> > out the reasons for that on 2001.12.02.
>
> OK, peace. But since we were talking a
Blending Ryan's and Greg's observations with my own...
It probably makes more sense to register the supported handlers (one
call per handler/name) with a handler name to follow the 1.3 convention.
For all simple cases, this is probably best.
Only modules with interesting characteristics (not foo
On Thursday 13 December 2001 01:07 pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Blending Ryan's and Greg's observations with my own...
>
> It probably makes more sense to register the supported handlers (one
> call per handler/name) with a handler name to follow the 1.3 convention.
> For all simple cases, th
Any other thoughts on this one? It's going to become important very soon
that I be able to run my own build as a service.
Thanks.
- Dave
-Original Message-
From: Dave Seidel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:29 PM
To: William A. Rowe, Jr.; [EMAIL PROTECTED
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> I still think the handler_fn function is overkill. The performance of Apache 1.3
> wasn't bad, because we did sane string compares, making sure that the
> lengths were equal before doing a full strcmp.
You're right, 1.3 was faster than the way we do it now. But we could
From: "Greg Ames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:44 PM
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > I still think the handler_fn function is overkill. The performance of Apache 1.3
> > wasn't bad, because we did sane string compares, making sure that the
> > lengths were equal before doi
On Thursday 13 December 2001 01:44 pm, Greg Ames wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > I still think the handler_fn function is overkill. The performance of
> > Apache 1.3 wasn't bad, because we did sane string compares, making sure
> > that the lengths were equal before doing a full strcmp.
>
> You're
From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 4:00 PM
> If you want to make this work for the most modules possible, create a single
> model that all modules must implement, and make that perform the best
> that it can.
That's exactly what I'm saying ... 1.3 had two f
Does anybody actually *want* these installed into prefix/modules by
"make install" and "apxs -i"?
If so, please speak up. I'd be curious about *why*.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in R
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:08:30AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Sascha Schumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > > I don't understand why an include doesn't go onto the INCLUDES variable. Why
> > > the shift?
> >
> > I suppose that the include
to waste cycles on the insert_filters hook if we don't run a request?
Should this simply get pushed from ap_process_request_internal() into
ap_invoke_handler() as the first part of the handler-execution phase?
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 03:10:29PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> to waste cycles on the insert_filters hook if we don't run a request?
> Should this simply get pushed from ap_process_request_internal() into
> ap_invoke_handler() as the first part of the handler-execution phase?
Seems reaso
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:00:12PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Does anybody actually *want* these installed into prefix/modules by
> "make install" and "apxs -i"?
>
> If so, please speak up. I'd be curious about *why*.
I say "no". As modules, they aren't intended for further linking.
Note tha
"Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Greg? I guess it is preferable to keep it in CPPFLAGS only
> > temporarily (for the test) and put it in INCLUDES once we find that it
> > works?
>
> Yes, unless it is required for later tests. Macros need to save and restore
> any global make
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 05:57:54PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:00:12PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > Does anybody actually *want* these installed into prefix/modules by
> > "make install" and "apxs -i"?
> >
> > If so, please speak up. I'd be curious about *why*.
>
> I
Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:00:12PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > Does anybody actually *want* these installed into prefix/modules by
> > "make install" and "apxs -i"?
> >
> > If so, please speak up. I'd be curious about *why*.
>
> I say "no". As module
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>...
> We already do link DSOs with -module, though we also throw on
> -export-dynamic as well, which doesn't seem appropriate.
Well, some modules export symbols for use by other modules. Maybe that is
why?
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein,
40 matches
Mail list logo
