The scanning loop in get_ptoken() was consuming the ')'
right after the "443". I just committed a fix.
--Brian
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>-
>http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8462
>
>
>produces a "Unmatched '('" error which
-
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8462
produces a "Unmatched '('" error which is wrong.
-
This looks like a legitimate bug, though from looking through the
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>-0 here too... the problem is that a proxy engine, knowing of a
>
> specific
>
>>bug with
>>Apache 2.0.41 and prior could compensate for that shortcoming. Having
>
> no
>
>>version information means the proxy or othe
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> At 06:08 PM 5/3/2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> >Cliff Woolley wrote:
> >>On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >>
> >>Possibly. I guess I draw the line by saying that it's okay to
announce
> >>version numbers, but configuration par
At 06:08 PM 5/3/2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>Cliff Woolley wrote:
>>On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>>Possibly. I guess I draw the line by saying that it's okay to announce
>>version numbers, but configuration parameters are out. I don't have so
>>much of a problem with third-party mo
Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>
> Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ok, but as far as I am concerned something like PHP, mod_dav, mod_perl,
>>> etc. are also server implementation details that do not belong in this
>>> header. Unless I misunderstood Roy's messa
At 05:24 PM 5/3/2002, you wrote:
>On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > Ok, but where should this information go then? Apache has definitely
> > benefitted by having this information available. Some sort of
> > X-SERVER-INFO: header then?
>
>What I meant was I don't think the MPM shoul
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>
>>Ok, but as far as I am concerned something like PHP, mod_dav, mod_perl,
>>etc. are also server implementation details that do not belong in this
>>header. Unless I misunderstood Roy's message. I don't see much of a
>>diff
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Ok, but as far as I am concerned something like PHP, mod_dav, mod_perl,
> etc. are also server implementation details that do not belong in this
> header. Unless I misunderstood Roy's message. I don't see much of a
> difference between announcing PHP
> What I meant was I don't think the MPM should be announced to the client.
> What possible benefit could there be to doing that?
I mainly had in mind that the authors could track usage that way.
S.
--
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Engineering group
Ok, but as far as I am concerned something like PHP, mod_dav, mod_perl,
etc. are also server implementation details that do not belong in this
header. Unless I misunderstood Roy's message. I don't see much of a
difference between announcing PHP there and an MPM.
-Rasmus
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Cli
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Ok, but where should this information go then? Apache has definitely
> benefitted by having this information available. Some sort of
> X-SERVER-INFO: header then?
What I meant was I don't think the MPM should be announced to the client.
What possible
Ok, but where should this information go then? Apache has definitely
benefitted by having this information available. Some sort of
X-SERVER-INFO: header then?
-Rasmus
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > I do not believe that the Server s
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I do not believe that the Server string should be used to describe
> implementation details of the server software. I know we already
> do that, over my objections.
FWIW, I agree with Roy on this one.
--Cliff
---
> I do not believe that the Server string should be used to describe
> implementation details of the server software. I know we already
> do that, over my objections.
This can be manipulated using the ServerTokens directive; the patch I
submitted subjects itself to that setting.
S.
--
Covalen
I do not believe that the Server string should be used to describe
implementation details of the server software. I know we already
do that, over my objections.
Roy
Damn...that's a bonk on the head. It probably should do that huh?
On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 16:30, Sander Temme wrote:
> All,
>
> The following patch, inline and attached because of possible
> line-wrapping,
> has the prefork MPM announce itself in the Server: header of all
> responses.
>
> Havin
All,
The following patch, inline and attached because of possible line-wrapping,
has the prefork MPM announce itself in the Server: header of all responses.
Having the MPM identify itself would provide insight in who is using Apache
in which configuration. It would allow groups like netstat to
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:24:22PM +0100, Thom May wrote:
> (and this isn't just because it has such a stupid name.)
> APR and APR-Util both do this already, so it brings httpd in line behaviour
> wise.
Yeah, it's a stupid name. Committed. Thanks! -- justin
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:14:40PM +0100, Thom May wrote:
> At least I hope it's 8170 ;)
> Anyhow, changes the LoadModule from just blindly being modules/mod_foo
> to being the relative libexecdir/mod_foo
Yeah, it's 8170. I marked it as fixed too.
Committed. Thanks! -- justin
I could see a benefit here if the functions themselves were likenable,
but they don't appear to be anyway, since the modules perform very
different operations for use within Apache.
The thing that could be gained though, by say, mod_include having the
ability is to enable mod_include to do the p
AhhhI took your comparison to mean that much of the underlying bits
were similar, thus my query.
I've looked at both modules and wasn't quite sure how they could be
*that* similar, so I had to ask. :)
On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 09:42, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On 3 May 2002, Austin Gonyou wrote:
>
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Tahiry Ramanamampanoharana wrote:
> I left the if/elseif/elseif/.../ set of strcmps in the version of
> mod_rewrite.c that I sent. I didn't want to modify it too much for the
> differences to be seen.
Can you resubmit this in patch format, please, and up-to-date with the
late
(and this isn't just because it has such a stupid name.)
APR and APR-Util both do this already, so it brings httpd in line behaviour
wise.
--
Thom May -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"When MSDOS was written specifically for the 8088 ..., this was less then
brilliant. Writing an OS only for the 386 in 91 g
At least I hope it's 8170 ;)
Anyhow, changes the LoadModule from just blindly being modules/mod_foo
to being the relative libexecdir/mod_foo
-Thom
--
Thom May -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You know, one advantage of having a DPL is that if aliens
land and tell you "take me to your leader", then
I just noticed that the apache-1.3.23-docs.pdf.zip got moved into
dist/old/. In the future, it would be better if we don't automatically
move the docs.pdf when new releases come out. I don't think we plan to
create a new pdf for every point release, so it is better to just leave
the most recent
>So mod_include already does this, mod_rewrite should as well. Right now
>mod_rewrite does a big if/elseif/elseif/.../ set of strcmps. If it just
>did a hash table lookup instead, we'd be set!
>
>--Cliff
>
I left the if/elseif/elseif/.../ set of strcmps in the version of
mod_rewrite.c that I s
This should be on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have copied that list.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> A couple of questions here ... I'm looking at the APR work that has been
> done, specifically in relation to the shared memory on win32 work, with an
> eye to making use of it to work
Austin Gonyou wrote:
>
> Should mod_include/mod_rewrite become a merge at some point or are they
> too different?
>
I would hope not. I cannot see having to bother with the nasty overhead
of mod_rewrite to do some simple mod_include functionality.
I'd -1 this.
--
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> ...
>
> So mod_include already does this, mod_rewrite should as well. Right now
> mod_rewrite does a big if/elseif/elseif/.../ set of strcmps. If it just
> did a hash table lookup instead, we'd be set!
And of course, the best is to use it also for user defined functions
On 3 May 2002, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> Should mod_include/mod_rewrite become a merge at some point or are they
> too different?
Whoa... totally different. mod_include parses documents, mod_rewrite
manipulates URLs. When I said it was similar, what I meant was that they
both have some built in f
Should mod_include/mod_rewrite become a merge at some point or are they
too different?
On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 09:01, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Tahiry Ramanamampanoharana wrote:
>
> > With with APR's optional functions, it's possible to create my own
> > mod_rewrite optional funct
I'm up for that... Any votes against? I can be RM, but I'll be at N+I next
week so we'd be looking at a T&R on a somewhat non-set schedule,
depending on my availability during that time :)
Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> There have been a number of people reporting the bugs in proxy in
> v1.3.24. Thes
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Tahiry Ramanamampanoharana wrote:
> With with APR's optional functions, it's possible to create my own
> mod_rewrite optional function. All I have to do is write an optional
> function and have mod_rewrite look in the optional functions' hash table
> for it. I was wondering if
A couple of questions here ... I'm looking at the APR work that has been
done, specifically in relation to the shared memory on win32 work, with an
eye to making use of it to work towards a 'native' version of PgSQL
instead of having to run through Cygin ...
Reading the license itself, use of th
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rose, Billy wrote:
> Here is my initial beta release of the mod_auth_referer module. I'll be
> hosting it on my site soon as a 3rd party module. Any comments are welcome.
Some comments:
- You may want to use ap_set_flag_slot and XtOffsetOf to reduce some code.
-
Hi all,
There have been a number of people reporting the bugs in proxy in
v1.3.24. These have been fixed in v1.3.25-dev, but there has been no
release as yet.
Can we get a release out for the benefit of the proxy users?
Regards,
Graham
--
-
[EMAIL PROTEC
Here is my initial beta release of the mod_auth_referer module. I'll be
hosting it on my site soon as a 3rd party module. Any comments are welcome.
Billy Rose
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mod_auth_referer.c
Description: Binary data
Hi all,
(My english isn't very good so I hope you understand this email)
I am a newbie with apache but I am curently writing an apache module for web
hosting. I am using mod_rewrite to do mass virtual hosting. The feature that
I really need in mod_rewrite is RewriteMap. Since I am already writ
39 matches
Mail list logo
