On Thu, 30 May 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> is modules/ssl/README even valuable anymore?
yes. fine to remove the stale stuff, but not the whole damn thing. there
was a useful roadmap of the source in there and everything that was in the
TODO section is still valid:
o SSL renegotiati
+1 (if it counts)
-Madhu
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: httpd-2.0 STATUS
* Port of mod_ssl to Apache 2.0:
The current porting state is summarized in modules/ssl/
* Port of mod_ssl to Apache 2.0:
The current porting state is summarized in modules/ssl/README. The
remaining work includes:
(1) stablizing/optimizing the SSL filter logic
(2) Enabling SSL extentions
(3) Trying to seperate the https filter logic from mod_ss
Tx a million for your reply.
I need the actual socket that apache uses to communicate with the client
in the php module. Is it available somewhere in the request_rec
structure?
I've been trying to get this for ages now.
Tx,
Vinod.
---
Vinod Panicker <[EMAIL PRO
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/05/30 02:55:56 $]
Release:
2.0.37 : in development.
2.0.36 : released May 6, 2002 as GA.
2.0.35 : released April 5, 2002 as GA.
2.0.34 : tagged March 26, 2002.
2.0.33
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/05/29 19:56:21 $]
Release:
1.3.25-dev: In development
A release is proposed for end of May 2002. Jim
volunteers to be RM. Baseline schedule is a
T&
> From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 May 2002 02:41
[...]
> > Log:
> > Catch up with the apr_allocator_set_owner -> apr_allocator_owner_set renames
> > in APR.
>
> This requires an MMN bump (which is fine with me, since we've already done
> one in 2.0.37-dev, and I'm
On 30 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> striker 02/05/29 17:21:27
>
> Modified:server/mpm/beos beos.c
>server/mpm/experimental/leader leader.c
>server/mpm/experimental/threadpool threadpool.c
>server/mpm/netware mpm_netware.c
>
At 05:55 PM 5/29/2002, you wrote:
>On Wed, 29 May 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Cliff, in order to get together Sebastian's fixes for isapi, we need to
> roll up
> > to the current thread_mutex code with the APR_THREAD_MUTEX_UNNESTED
> > flag... could you fold those changes in along wit
On Wed, 29 May 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Cliff, in order to get together Sebastian's fixes for isapi, we need to roll up
> to the current thread_mutex code with the APR_THREAD_MUTEX_UNNESTED
> flag... could you fold those changes in along with the mod_isapi.c fixes,
> and the change to
At 05:27 PM 5/29/2002, you wrote:
>On Thu, 30 May 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
>
> > The bugs that were uncovered are independent of the hifree/reuse patch.
> > They have been in there for a while. I'll be committing fixes in a
> > moment.
>
>Aha. Then I'll hold off on PRE2 for a little while the
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
> The bugs that were uncovered are independent of the hifree/reuse patch.
> They have been in there for a while. I'll be committing fixes in a
> moment.
Aha. Then I'll hold off on PRE2 for a little while then and we'll try to
get them all in.
Thanks,
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 May 2002 00:16
> Modified:.STATUS
> Log:
> I'm holding off on the pool patches until they settle down a bit.
The bugs that were uncovered are independent of the hifree/reuse patch.
They have been in there for a whi
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> Yes, the patch was correct (IMHO) and yes, I committed this one.
>
> About the X-Forwarded-* stuff: It's non-standard anyway (you can add
> any X-whatever header and still be RFC2616 compliant) so I'd rather
> not see it in 1.3 now
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:40:12PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> In the good old days, a tag was a tag was a tag. There was no "preliminary
> tag" which would then be moved to a different revision later on an
> ad-hoc basis.
I never said it would be
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 11:20:43PM +0200, Kraemer, Martin wrote:
...
I forgot to mention that, with Subversion, it's going to be completely
different again.
Martin
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Fujitsu Siemens
Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FAX: +49-89-636-47655 | 81730 Munich, Germany
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:40:12PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> If you're going to commit it, just do it. That's what my preliminary tag
> was for... so I had a base from which to selectively include patches.
> When tagged, APACHE_2_0_37 will != HEAD. :)
In the good old days, a tag was a ta
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 06:28:24PM +0200, Thomas Eibner wrote:
> From: Anthony Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [apache-modules] Setting bytes_sent in Request Record while generating
> all headers by myself in Apache 1.3
>
> >Number: 6841
>ap_kill_timeout(r);
> +
> +
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 10:07:46PM +0200, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:57:27PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Ignore leading zeros when parsing hex value for chunk extensions.
> >
> > +/* Skip leading zeros */
> > +while (*b == '0') {
> > +++b
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:57:27PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ignore leading zeros when parsing hex value for chunk extensions.
>
> +/* Skip leading zeros */
> +while (*b == '0') {
> +++b;
> +}
> +
>while (apr_isxdigit(*b) && (chunkbits > 0)) {
T
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 12:47:17PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Looks interesting and useful... should we fold into 1.3 (and 2.0)?
Second thoughts:
* it would be nice if this functionality could be folded into AllowCONNECT.
- AllowConnect currently accepts only ports (thus a misnomer,
a
>martin 02/05/29 10:39:23
>
> Modified:src CHANGES
>src/modules/standard mod_rewrite.c
> Log:
> Fix a problem in mod_rewrite which would lead to 400 Bad Request
> responses for rewriting rules which resulted in a local path.
It seems I did in fact transpose
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> In 2.0, they were correct since 21-Oct-01 already.
>
> Although this was a hasty 1.3.25 commit, I think I did the Right Thing.
+1 ... you might want to have a **warning** in the CHANGES entry since
this could break old (incorrect) configs that worked
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 05:39:24PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fix a problem in mod_rewrite which would lead to 400 Bad Request
> responses for rewriting rules which resulted in a local path.
>
> diff -u -r1.176 -r1.177
I hand-checked the other changes that had sneaked into rev 1.176;
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> I'm not commiting this until .37 is out the door
> but I thought some people may be interested in this beforehand
>
> http://webperf.org/a2/v37/cache
If you're going to commit it, just do it. That's what my preliminary tag
was for... so I had a base fro
On 29 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> martin 02/05/29 10:39:23
>
> Modified:src CHANGES
>src/modules/standard mod_rewrite.c
> Log:
> Fix a problem in mod_rewrite which would lead to 400 Bad Request
> responses for rewriting rules which resulted in a local
Now is not the time to be adding in code whilly-nilly...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 08:18:53PM +0200, Thomas Eibner wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:02:53PM -0400, Greg Marr wrote:
> > At 01:30 PM 05/29/2002, Thomas Eibner wrote:
> > >Index: proxy_http.c
> > >===
> > >RCS file: /home/cvspub
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:02:53PM -0400, Greg Marr wrote:
> At 01:30 PM 05/29/2002, Thomas Eibner wrote:
> >Index: proxy_http.c
> >===
> >RCS file: /home/cvspublic/apache-1.3/src/modules/proxy/proxy_http.c,v
> >retrieving revision 1.
At 01:30 PM 05/29/2002, Thomas Eibner wrote:
>Index: proxy_http.c
>===
>RCS file: /home/cvspublic/apache-1.3/src/modules/proxy/proxy_http.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.98
>diff -u -r1.98 proxy_http.c
>--- proxy_http.c21 Apr 2002
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 07:44:16PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Thomas Eibner wrote:
>
> > Inline patch here, but I'm wondering if you want the X-Forwarded-For
> > header to be stuck inside the conditional too?
>
> I think it should be... will sort this out later tonight or first thing
> tomor
I'm not commiting this until .37 is out the door
but I thought some people may be interested in this beforehand
http://webperf.org/a2/v37/cache
4 new files (cache_cache.[ch] | cache_pqueue.[ch] )
and some minor mods on mod_cache.c/h
the interesting mods are in mod_mem_cache
---Ian
Thomas Eibner wrote:
> Inline patch here, but I'm wondering if you want the X-Forwarded-For
> header to be stuck inside the conditional too?
I think it should be... will sort this out later tonight or first thing
tomorrow, have to leave the internet cafe now to fetch someone.
Regards,
Graham
--
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 07:20:17PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Thomas Eibner wrote:
>
> > Ah yes, X-Forwarded-For is there, but not the two others there is in
> > 2.0 (X-Forwarded-Server and X-Forwared-Host) I read in the source that
> > someone thinks it needs to go into the Via header instea
Thomas Eibner wrote:
> Ah yes, X-Forwarded-For is there, but not the two others there is in
> 2.0 (X-Forwarded-Server and X-Forwared-Host) I read in the source that
> someone thinks it needs to go into the Via header instead. And as I can
> read from the source, X-Forwarded-For is only sent when
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Thomas Eibner wrote:
>
> > Looking at apache-1.3 in cvs VS httpd-2.0 there seems to be a few
> > changes, and the X-Forwarded-* headers are some of them. I have a
> > patch ready if needed (with what I believe are your comments in
Thomas Eibner wrote:
> Looking at apache-1.3 in cvs VS httpd-2.0 there seems to be a few
> changes, and the X-Forwarded-* headers are some of them. I have a
> patch ready if needed (with what I believe are your comments in
> it).
Just checked - the X-Forwarded-For is definitely there in v1.3. Du
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 06:47:20PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Thomas Eibner wrote:
>
> > Anyone looked at the remaining open bugs in 1.3 and might want to include
> > this patch (and bug)?
>
> Only if someone can verify that this patch actually does anything. The
> proxy has been largely rew
Just FYI.. another datum on the 'AG are snobs' scale..
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
--- Begin Message ---
Thomas Eibner wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:2
Thomas Eibner wrote:
> Anyone looked at the remaining open bugs in 1.3 and might want to include
> this patch (and bug)?
Only if someone can verify that this patch actually does anything. The
proxy has been largely rewritten since then, so this bug might not still
be outstanding.
There is a rel
Anyone looked at the remaining open bugs in 1.3 and might want to include
this patch (and bug)?
Would it also be possible to have mod_proxy for 1.3 set the same
X-Forwarded-* headers as the 2.0 proxy does? Need patches for this?
- Forwarded message from Anthony Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Please review and commit the following patch.
Thanks,
Mohan
-Original Message-
From: GUMMALAM,MOHAN (HP-Cupertino,ex2) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 3:26 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PATCH]: 64-bit porting issue in apr_sdbm.h
There is a 64-bit issue wit
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:27:59PM +0530, Vinod Panicker wrote:
>
> This script I call from the browser, and everytime it displays a '3'. I
> even called it from different browser windows, still the same.
>
> That cant be alright since if the fd is 3 as shown in one browser
> window, it has to
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Greg Ames wrote:
> Why not just bump the tag? Brian already pounded it using a config/test
> case designed to stress it. It survived, doesn't degrade performance,
> and no one who is using HEAD from the last 3 days has complained.
I will include this in JCW_PRE2_2037, whic
This patch reworks some of the checks in TPF's os_check_server function
to better accommodate TPF's Internet Daemon processing.
David McCreedy
Index: apache-1.3/src/os/tpf/os.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/os/tpf/os.c,v
Sander Striker wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see Brian say he is against.
> His benchmarks show that the patch doesn't affect httpd performance,
> so I don't really get where this is comming from. Can someone point
> me to a message ID?
>
> Furthermore, you left Ian out of the
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:47:35PM +0200, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> But IMO we need to have a way to parse the hex string and detect an
> integer overflow at the same time. If an overflow occurs, then
> an 4XX message is appropriate (400 Bad Request rather than
> 413 Request Entity Too Large)
I mo
I assume this is a real problem?
mod_deflate.c: In function `deflate_in_filter':
mod_deflate.c:533: warning: `zRC' might be used uninitialized in this function
Index: modules/filters/mod_deflate.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/m
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 08:00:16AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 10:18:52AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > okay, do try it, but (unlike somebody last night) don't try it on daedalus
> >
> > GET / HTTP/1.1
> > Accept: */*
> > Host: test
> > Content-Type: application/x-w
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 06:36:28PM +0100, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> But the contexts get warped when you call Include and certain
> things are allowed and certain not allowed because they are
> always treated as resource configs .. and so on
Yes, I stubled over that problem myself several times.
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 12:47:17PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Looks interesting and useful... should we fold into 1.3 (and 2.0)?
+1 (untested)
Martin
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Fujitsu Siemens
Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FAX: +49-89-636-47655 | 81730 Munich, Germany
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 12:53:20AM -0700, Sander van Zoest wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2002, Martin Kraemer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Sander van Zoest wrote:
> > > Can we add in PR#9181?
> > > More and more people will run into this issue.
> > -0.5 (it's a feature, and is
At 9:56 AM -0700 5/28/02, Sander van Zoest wrote:
>On Tue, 28 May 2002, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
>> There has been much talk of releasing v1.3.25, but no actual release - I
>> am starting to really need the new proxy fixes since v1.3.22 - is there
>> a release planned for the near future?
>> The st
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your reply...
Let me explain what exactly I did.
I made changes to the php_apache.c file and added a new php function of
my own, which is supposed to return the client socket when called from a
php script. Here is the code for the function -
---
/* {{{ proto
"Dwayne Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wasn't there recently a bug on WinNT/Win2k with a setsockopt call that
> failed. I'm getting that error when the client is IE5 on Mac OSx and
> SSL is enabled. Tks
Exactly what error are you getting? Was there something in your error
log? Show th
"Vinod Panicker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Where is the client socket fd stored in the request_rec structure?
>
> Is it either of the r->connection->client->fd or the
> r->connection->client->fd_in variables?
>
> I tried accessing the values, but both the variables show the value '
Hi,
Where is the client socket fd stored in the request_rec structure?
Is it either of the r->connection->client->fd or the
r->connection->client->fd_in variables?
I tried accessing the values, but both the variables show the value '3'
for every request passed to the php module.
Tx,
Vinod.
--
I'm glad you like the idea.
I hope it will be implemented as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Webmaster33
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2002.05.28 at 09:27 Bill Stoddard wrote:
>I am +1 in concept on this. If I don't hear any strenuous objections,
>I'll update the
>STATUS file wit
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Sander van Zoest wrote:
> > Can we add in PR#9181?
> > More and more people will run into this issue.
> -0.5 (it's a feature, and is actively being used by many).
> Or did you mean "add the new directive Accept
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Sander van Zoest wrote:
>
> Can we add in PR#9181?
> More and more people will run into this issue.
-0.5 (it's a feature, and is actively being used by many).
Or did you mean "add the new directive AcceptPathInfo off"?
In that case, +1 (but within the ti
60 matches
Mail list logo
