Hi,
First of all, I also posted this mail on the Apache users
mailing
list but did not receive any solution for my problem.
That's why
I'm trying the dev mailing list now.
I have a problem with letting Apache 2.0.39/mod_cache serve
cached
pages. When first requesting a page, the page is being
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 12:52:25PM -0400, Greg Ames sent those random bytes:
> in the html. I am curious to hear what the W3C Validator people say.
Well, my message to W3C generated a thread of ten emails.
This is a short report of their toughts.
1 - There is no need to specify a meta charset in
mod_disk_cache is still broken. mod_mem_cache should work (w/o virtual
hosts) in 2.0.40. A couple of folks on the list have some fixes for
mod_disk_cache that will get into 2.0.41. Sorry for the inconvience.
Bill
> Hi,
>
> First of all, I also posted this mail on the Apache users
> mailing
> l
Hi Rasmus Lerdorf,
you wrote.
RL> libraries as well. We are going to have to fix a bunch of them and mutex
RL> some others before Apache2 with a threaded MPM will be of any use with PHP
RL> or mod_perl.
Am I correct assuming that when they are mutex'ed that there will be
one instance of XX_lib
Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
>Hi Rasmus Lerdorf,
>you wrote.
>
>RL> libraries as well. We are going to have to fix a bunch of them and mutex
>RL> some others before Apache2 with a threaded MPM will be of any use with PHP
>RL> or mod_perl.
>
>Am I correct assuming that when they are mutex'ed that there
I've just tried both mod_case_filter, and mod_case_filter_in on a 2.0.39 server.
mod_case_filter works, while mod_case_filter_in does not.
Is there anyone who can tell me what has to be done in order to get
case_filter_in to work?
Thanks
---
Aryeh Katz
VASCO
www.vasco.com
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:36:53AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> It's not entire libraries that will have to be mutexed, just
> calls to non-thread-safe functions within libraries. That
> will reduce the concurrency of the server, but in general
> not so severely that it's only serving one request a
> Hi Rasmus Lerdorf,
> you wrote.
>
> RL> libraries as well. We are going to have to fix a bunch of them and mutex
> RL> some others before Apache2 with a threaded MPM will be of any use with PHP
> RL> or mod_perl.
>
> Am I correct assuming that when they are mutex'ed that there will be
> one ins
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>Hi Rasmus Lerdorf,
>>you wrote.
>>
>>RL> libraries as well. We are going to have to fix a bunch of them and mutex
>>RL> some others before Apache2 with a threaded MPM will be of any use with PHP
>>RL> or mod_perl.
>>
>>Am I correct assuming that when they are mutex'ed tha
Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:36:53AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> > It's not entire libraries that will have to be mutexed, just
> > calls to non-thread-safe functions within libraries. That
> > will reduce the concurrency of the server, but in general
> > not so severe
Hi,
I have setup a proxy server on Apache, but if the
upstream webserver is off at the time, it's pages return 502/Bad Gateway,
presumably via mod_proxy.
However, under Apache 2 (2.0.39 on win32 at
least), the errors look like this (taken straight from the
browser):
Bad Gateway!
> >If we end up having to mutex, sure, if every request for that domain needs
> >to access the mutxed library, then yes, you would only be able to serve up
> >one request at a time from that domain.
> >
> >
>
> That's not accurate in general. The amount of serialization will depend on
> how much
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> If, for example, we have to mutex an entire database library and every
> request needs to make an sql query, then effectively we are down to
> serializing the requests and only handling one at a time. And yes, it
> goes without saying that it is better to use libraries
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> My point is that people blindly install the latest stable PHP with the
> latest stable Apache and they end up something that is not stable at all.
> They don't understand what an MPM is, much less which MPM to use for what.
OK, so this set of users will get the default MP
While the stripping of the C-L header on GET has been fixed, mod_proxy
is still stripping the Content-Length header on HEAD.
Graham Wiseman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Example requests to a Apache 2.0.40 reverse proxy pointing at an Apache
1.3.26:
Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
> Hi Rasmus Lerdorf,
> you wrote.
>
> RL> libraries as well. We are going to have to fix a bunch of them and mutex
> RL> some others before Apache2 with a threaded MPM will be of any use with PHP
> RL> or mod_perl.
>
> Am I correct assuming that when they are mutex'ed tha
Hi,
Many months ago I submitted a patch for UDP support within Apache 2.0. This
a resubmission of that patch,
which allows for UDP packets to work with Unix versions of Apache 2.0.
Here's what I wrote then:
This patch adds UDP support to unix versions of Apache 2.0.
This patch is set to add U
I don't believe that this should be incorporated into the core
server. The core of Apache is an HTTP server, which means that it should
only know how to listen on TCP sockets. The support is there however, for
other socket types to be added to the server. For the UDP case, your
protocol module
Greg Ames wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>My point is that people blindly install the latest stable PHP with the
>>latest stable Apache and they end up something that is not stable at all.
>>They don't understand what an MPM is, much less which MPM to use for what.
>
> OK, so this set of users w
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I don't believe that this should be incorporated into the core
> server. The core of Apache is an HTTP server, which means that it should
> only know how to listen on TCP sockets. The support is there however, for
> other socket types to be added to the server. For the UDP c
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Scott Lamb wrote:
> True for now, but:
>
> * Make the worker MPM the default MPM for threaded Unix boxes.
>+1: Justin, Ian, Cliff, BillS, striker
I might remove my vote.
Note that even though the current majority of votes is "for" rather than
"against", it ha
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > I don't believe that this should be incorporated into the core
> > server. The core of Apache is an HTTP server, which means that it should
> > only know how to listen on TCP sockets. The support is there however, for
> > other soc
Tony Toyofuku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Many months ago I submitted a patch for UDP support within Apache 2.0. This
> a resubmission of that patch,
Regarding the APR changes:
Why would we need apr_udp_connect() that dups the socket? I don't see
the relationship between normal ud
Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we should get the patches that affect APR in the codebase as
> currently I don't think we can create a udp socket properly,
Are there any problems you know of in that area?
I don't normally exercise apr/test/testsockets, but it plays with
basic
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/06/27 20:57:21 $]
Release:
1.3.27-dev: In development
1.3.26: Tagged June 18, 2002.
1.3.25: Tagged June 17, 2002. Not released.
1.3.24: Tagged Mar 21, 2002. Announced Mar 22, 20
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/08/14 20:51:52 $]
Release:
2.0.41 : in development.
2.0.40 : released August 9, 2002 as GA.
2.0.39 : released June 17, 2002 as GA.
2.0.38 : rolled June 16, 2002. not rele
26 matches
Mail list logo
