At 09:42 PM 10/31/2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>> No good solution. But *if* this is the only error (HTTP/0.9
>> responses in reaction to HTTP over HTTPS), I'd ask if I could get a
>> few +1's so I can proceed with the effort (on to the SSL write
>>
At 11:48 PM 10/31/2002, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>Just reading through the documentation to find if there is a single pool that
>all processes/threads have access to, without mucking around with direct shared
>memory allocation. So far, couldn't fine one in Apache 2. Does it exist?
If you are looking
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 21:48, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Just reading through the documentation to find if there is a single pool that
> all processes/threads have access to, without mucking around with direct shared
> memory allocation. So far, couldn't fine one in Apache 2. Does it exist?
There isn't
Just reading through the documentation to find if there is a single pool that
all processes/threads have access to, without mucking around with direct shared
memory allocation. So far, couldn't fine one in Apache 2. Does it exist?
Bojan
Folks, this looks wrong after consideration. If someone is familiar
with the Linux gcc optimizer, please see my last comments in
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14147
I'm starting to feel like the optimizer bit us.
Bill
At 09:27 PM 10/31/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>wrowe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> No good solution. But *if* this is the only error (HTTP/0.9
> responses in reaction to HTTP over HTTPS), I'd ask if I could get a
> few +1's so I can proceed with the effort (on to the SSL write
> BIO, then back to addressing the HTTP over HTTPS f
That's not necessarily good, but it's to be expected.
I followed the original idea of moving over to an HTTP/0.9 to emit
the HTTP over HTTPS error. However, it didn't occur to me that
a client sending that request would be looking for the HTTP/1.0
headers. Good point here.
Now the really, reall
I couldn't look much into it (because of some other thing that came up), but
the perl-framework gives a failure at :
ssl/httpresponse had protocol HTTP/0.9 (headers not sent?) at
/tmp/madhum.perl_framework/httpd-test/perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache/
TestRequest.pm line 405.
dubio
Folks, once again, please take a look at the attached code. This time
around, it actually works ;-)
This is correct only for the input BIO layer. The output BIO layer still
needs alot of work.
Although I merged SSL_read from two into a single function (against
other's preferences), it's necess
Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --On Thursday, October 31, 2002 6:10 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > incorrect doc (util_filter.h) which says that APR status codes
> > should be returned
>
> I'm confused. Why is that incorrect? APR status codes *sho
--On Thursday, October 31, 2002 6:10 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
incorrect doc (util_filter.h) which says that APR status codes
should be returned
I'm confused. Why is that incorrect? APR status codes *should* be
returned by the filters. If a filter has an error, it
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> tmp 717# diff -u httpd-2.0.43/modules/generators/mod_status.c ./mod_status.c
> --- httpd-2.0.43/modules/generators/mod_status.cSun Jun 30 20:20:13 2002
> +++ ./mod_status.c Mon Oct 28 16:44:31 2002
> @@ -749,7 +749,7 @@
>
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
>
> 3.2.3 URI Comparison ...
>
> *** Characters other than those in the "reserved" and "unsafe" sets (see RFC 2396
>[42]) are equivalent to their ""%" HEX HEX" encoding. For example, the following
>three URIs are equivalent:
> http://abc.com:80/~smith/home.html
>
Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can switch to another mutex mechanism ("AcceptMutex fcntl" in
> httpd.conf) to work around this problem if your Apache is consistently
> crashing or you're using a 3rd party module which allocates sems and
> doesn't clean up.
uhh, my last comment was
Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe I can find time to review any old discussion about this to see
> if there were good reasons for changing the output filter interface :)
See the discussion back in March 2002 with subject
[PATCH] invalid HTTP status codes in access log
I don't
--On Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:19 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OpenSSL 0.9.6g does so. Why shouldn't we?
Because OpenSSL is a library, we're not.
However, if we don't have inl worth of bytes, and they are sitting
ready (on the socket) shouldn't we fetch them
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:09:04PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 04:43 PM 10/30/2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> >> At 02:52 PM 10/30/2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> >Your patch will simply let the %2F through, but then a later section
> >> >of code will translate them to / and we've ope
17 matches
Mail list logo
