Paul J. Reder wrote:
>
>
> Brian Pane wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking about strategies for building a
>> multiple-connection-per-thread MPM for 2.0. It's
>> conceptually easy to do this:
>>
>> * Start with worker.
>>
>> * Keep the model of one worker thread per request,
>>so that blocking o
David Shane Holden wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> ianh2002/09/03 08:54:46
>>
>> Modified:.CHANGES
>>docs/conf httpd-nw.conf httpd-std.conf.in httpd-win.conf
>> Log:
>> switch x-icon to httpd.conf instead of mime.types
>
>
> Did you mean to leave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ianh2002/09/03 08:54:46
>
> Modified:.CHANGES
>docs/conf httpd-nw.conf httpd-std.conf.in httpd-win.conf
> Log:
> switch x-icon to httpd.conf instead of mime.types
Did you mean to leave x-icon in mime.types?
Shane
Paul J. Reder wrote:
>
>
> Brian Pane wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking about strategies for building a
>> multiple-connection-per-thread MPM for 2.0. It's
>> conceptually easy to do this:
>>
>> * Start with worker.
>>
>> * Keep the model of one worker thread per request,
>>so that blocking
Brian Pane wrote:
> I've been thinking about strategies for building a
> multiple-connection-per-thread MPM for 2.0. It's
> conceptually easy to do this:
>
> * Start with worker.
>
> * Keep the model of one worker thread per request,
>so that blocking or CPU-intensive modules don't
>
Please vote:
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Lesser of 2 evils, IMO. Breaking backwards compatibility for the 1.3
> community and the early 2.0 adopters is painful, but I think
> spreading resources towards a 2.1 tree is even more danger
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 04:36:58PM -0700, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Just as a crazy idea: Since you are retaining all the old APIs, shouldn't
> it be possible to distribute the current modules as mod_auth_compat and
> mod_auth_dbm_compat that users could activate to get all the old
> directives?
Eek.
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain
> backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative directives.
> So, a vote for 2.0 means it is okay to break backwards compatibility.
Just as a crazy idea: Since you are retainin
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Please vote:
>
> [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
--
> Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain
> backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authorita
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Please vote:
>
> [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
>
> Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain
> backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative directives.
> So,
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >
> > > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > >
> > > > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> > > > > > [X] Check in aaa
> [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Why are we suddenly having so many damned votes...
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> > > > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
> > > >
> > > > My view is that it's importa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
>
>
>
>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>
>>>[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
>>>[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
>>>
>>>
>>My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new
>>users
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> > > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
> > >
> > > My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable
>
> Please vote:
>
> [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
>
Lesser of 2 evils, IMO. Breaking backwards compatibility for the 1.3
community and the early 2.0 adopters is painful, but I think
spreading resources towards a 2.1 tree is even more dangerous and
painful
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
> >
> > My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new
> > users, and breaking things all the time w
> Please vote:
>
> [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Adoption of Apache 2 so far has been low enough that Apache 2 may
still be considered to be in the "early adopter" phase. Breaking
compatibility is to be avoided when possible, but is allowable
when necessar
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
>
> My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new
> users, and breaking things all the time won't help :)
Can
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[x] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Shane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new
users, and breaking things all the time won't help :)
Chris Taylor - The guy with the PS2 WebServer
Email: [EMAIL
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>Please vote:
>
>[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
>[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
>
>
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Please vote:
>
> [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
> [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Ryan
Please vote:
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain
backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative directives.
So, a vote for 2.0 means it is okay to break backwards compatibility.
Everyone is enco
Peter Van Biesen wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> when I set the LogLevel to info, I get a lot of message like the one in
> de subjectline, is this normal ? Has anybody else observed this ?
I think those messages are common for a production site with a lot of users and
LogLevel info. We use LogLevel war
At 02:00 PM 9/3/2002, Jon Travis wrote:
>Either one is fine to me. Integrating the code into apr-util is probably
>an easier setup, but will require more work to adapt to the build system
>and change the symbols (and of course I'm quite liking the name
>'el-kabong' ;-)).
That's sort of the conce
My comments inline:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 02:53:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> There are currently two possible avenues.
>
> 1) The code goes into apr-util.
> 2) The code goes into a sandbox project.
>
> The APR option is faster, but there is some misgivings about whether it
> b
There are currently two possible avenues.
1) The code goes into apr-util.
2) The code goes into a sandbox project.
The APR option is faster, but there is some misgivings about whether it
belongs in apr-util. The vote was done, and it seems to be accepted, but
Greg was keeping tally, so I don
Any word on this? (take 2)
-- Jon
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 08:32:16PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
> Hi all...
> Jon Travis here...
>
> Covalent has written a pretty keen HTML parser (called el-kabong)
> which we'd like to offer to the ASF for inclusion in APR-util (or
> whichever other umbrella
It would be nicest of all to have builds of each version of the core for
each platform -- and pluggable binaries of all the extra modules for each
version/platform as well. This could be cranked out by automated scripts
as a release criteria/requirement, i.e. it's not a release until everythin
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:24:01 +0200
>From: Peter Van Biesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
>
>
>Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
>all c
Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
all clear what should get in. Indeed, a repository would be a better
idea, with an apache distribution with no modules ( or only the core
ones ).
Peter.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> Aye ! Well said.
>
> Dw.
>
> On Tu
Aye ! Well said.
Dw.
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, John K. Sterling wrote:
> Here we go.
>
> kitchen sink come on - we let a module into experimental (auth_ldap) and
> suddenly experimental will become the CPAN of apache.
>
> I think this is a silly idea personally. More cruft to maintain and to
>
Here we go.
kitchen sink come on - we let a module into experimental (auth_ldap) and
suddenly experimental will become the CPAN of apache.
I think this is a silly idea personally. More cruft to maintain and to
hold back releases, etc. etc. etc. Until Aaron's (et. al) idea of a module
regis
>other container implements the protocol ? Moreover, the mod_jk is of
no
>use to other webservers than apache and with the increased use of
But mod_jk is of no use without tomcat either..
>servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
Not so sure about this one. (For my webservers true, but all
Mladen Turk wrote:
> There is no need to take that personal. You should post that question to
> the [EMAIL PROTECTED] first. No one is pushing you out, and
> all your ideas and thoughts will be highly appreciated.
OK
>
> Second, if you are asking for a vote then IMO there should be some sort
> of
> From Peter Van Biesen
> Anyway, I gathered that apache was a organization that
> promoted public initiative. Apparently, it is not
> appreciated. I hope your attitude will get you far in your
> carreer ( probably a management position, I'm sure ... ).
>
There is no need to take that person
Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> > I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core
> > distribution.
>
> The jk is not in the TC distribution, but rather in the
> jakarta-tomcat-connectors.
My mistake.
> > It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution,
>
> That's your opinion, an
> I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core
> distribution.
The jk is not in the TC distribution, but rather in the
jakarta-tomcat-connectors.
> It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution,
That's your opinion, and you should first ask the question to the righ
Hello,
I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core distribution.
It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution, what if an
other container implements the protocol ? Moreover, the mod_jk is of no
use to other webservers than apache and with the increased use of
servlets
41 matches
Mail list logo
