Re: weird mod_proxy function proxy_needsdomain

André Malo wrote: from mod_proxy.c:302: static int proxy_needsdomain(request_rec *r, const char *url, const char *domain) "url" is never used within that function. r->parsed_uri will be evaluated instead. I'd consider this a bug and guess "url" should intentionally be parsed and evaluated. .

[STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Feb 5 23:45:21 EST 2003

APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2003/01/27 17:50:43 $] Release [NOTE that only Alpha/Beta releases occur in 2.1 development]: 2.1.0 : in development Please consult the following STATUS files for information on related proj

[STATUS] (apache-1.3) Wed Feb 5 23:45:13 EST 2003

APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2003/02/04 19:08:59 $] Release: 1.3.28-dev: In development 1.3.27: Tagged September 30, 2002. Announced Oct 3, 2002. 1.3.26: Tagged June 18, 2002. 1.3.25: Tagged June 17, 2002. Not re

Re: Help needed

The Complation is really nice. Thanx for the help. Sudhir Dmitri Tikhonov

Re: story posted

Okay guys, I have to weigh in here as a non-developer and add a comment re all of this back and forth discussion on whether PHP or Apache 2.0 is the problem for why they don't work/play together properly. As an end user, I don't give a f*ck why it doesn't work! But I can tell you this -- until

weird mod_proxy function proxy_needsdomain

from mod_proxy.c:302: static int proxy_needsdomain(request_rec *r, const char *url, const char *domain) "url" is never used within that function. r->parsed_uri will be evaluated instead. I'd consider this a bug and guess "url" should intentionally be parsed and evaluated. ... right? TIA, nd -

Re: HTTP Input header filter

--On Wednesday, February 5, 2003 4:32 PM -0500 Bill Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. Installing this filter for the duration of a connection. It is still a protocol filter, but it lasts for the duration of the connection. In order to handle pipelined connections, an Hmm. I'm wondering if

Re: HTTP Input header filter

Bill Stoddard wrote: Brian Pane wrote: Bill Stoddard wrote: Just a heads up in case anyone else is interested or is comtemplating working on this... I am rewriting much of the code called by ap_read_request to handle HTTP headers. Much of the function in rgetline_core, read_request_headers a

Re: Graceful shutdown in 2.0

On our systems we just rename that "alteoncheck.txt" file to "alteoncheck_DOWN.txt" when we're going to bring a server down (causing a 404 error for the health check, which stops all new requests), it effectively does the same thing you describe without the hassle of writing a handler. And yes it

Re: Proposed solution for bug #16056

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16056 Anthony, I like the gist of your patch, but your ownership observations were correct; we can't implement this patch as written. This was just addressed in recent Apache releases and will continue to be tightened, not loosened. Bugger.

Re: Altogether Broken OtherChild logic

At 09:11 AM 1/31/2003, Bill Stoddard wrote: >>As for your question about polling, if we cycle every second we waste >>cpu - if we sample every few seconds we lose more log entries etc. >>If we receive alerts when the otherchild processes die we can react >>immediately without the extra loops. >In

Re: Proposed solution for bug #16056

At 06:14 AM 2/5/2003, Anthony Howe wrote: >Please find enclosed a proposed solution for the bug I posted last month: > >http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16056 > >The source code comments in the patch should explain everything. I'm currently >testing this against Apache 2.0.44

Re: story posted

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Joshua Slive wrote: > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > Now, we could solve both problems by using a handler and > > the prefork MPM. But then, Apache 2.0+PHP is basically > > Apache 1.3+PHP with a few extra modules thrown in. That's > > how it app

Re: story posted

> What I think is useful information to people who want PHP+Apache-2.0 is: > > a) is PHP not production ready with Apache 2.0 because it was not high > enough priority for PHP to be tested? That is a big part of it. The fact that the thread-safety of many third-party libraries that can be linke

Re: Graceful shutdown in 2.0

Hello, GL>If your proxy machines were being load balanced by an Alteon switch (or GL>whatever) you could probably tell the switch to stop sending new GL>connections to the proxy in question, while allowing the old connections GL>to finish. Of course this is based on whether the Alteon (or whate

Re: Help needed

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 06:56:43PM +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello all, > > can anyone tell me where to find the manuals on apcahe API functions ? > I am attempting my first apache 2.0 module. I have been using this nice compilation: http://docx.webperf.org/ - Dmitri.

Re: story posted

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote: > What I think is useful information to people who want PHP+Apache-2.0 is: > > a) is PHP not production ready with Apache 2.0 because it was not high > enough priority for PHP to be tested? > > b) is PHP not production ready with Apache 2.0 because Apache 2.

Re: Help needed

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > can anyone tell me where to find the manuals on apcahe API functions ? > I am attempting my first apache 2.0 module. The documentation is in the header files themselves. --Cliff

Re: Graceful shutdown in 2.0

At 07:29 AM 2/5/2003, Hans Zaunere wrote: >> David Burry wrote: >> >> > um, but if you're talking about shutting down the proxy itself (i.e. the >> > whole service, cutting off all load balanced machines behind it) that's >> > hardly graceful to begin with so why bother to make it graceful...

Re: [PATCH] letting the app do something useful when apr_proc_create()fails in the child process

Greg Ames wrote: > Alternatively, APR could allow the application to get called in the > child process in the failure cases and allow it to do whatever is > appropriate (log a message, synchronize with the parent process, etc.). Couldn't the stat's, chdir's, etc. be done only after a failure to

RE: [RFC] [PATCH] mod_cgi adding ap_hook_cgi_fault()

This is incorrect. Only 1 module would able to read the stderr bucket brigade. All other modules would not see the data in the brigade. Instead stderr needs to be put into its own special memory structure, and passed via a pointer. I'll post a patch in a few weeks. > -Original Message-

Re: Graceful shutdown in 2.0

--- Graham Leggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Burry wrote: > > > um, but if you're talking about shutting down the proxy itself (i.e. the > > whole service, cutting off all load balanced machines behind it) that's > > hardly graceful to begin with so why bother to make it graceful...

Re: story posted

Bill Stoddard wrote: > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > under other OSs (like Solaris), the difference > > is appreciable. > > More like -huge-. I should have put a winky after "appreciable". -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAI

Re: story posted

Sascha Schumann wrote: a) is PHP not production ready with Apache 2.0 because it was not high enough priority for PHP to be tested? The current Apache 2 support in PHP is based on filters only. That however is not well-supported by the scripting engine which prefers real file object

Re: story posted

> So why not just do a handler-based PHP for 2.0, and work on other problems > in the future. This is a silly family quarel that is making everyone look > bad. We are looking forward to your contributions. Please apply for a CVS account here: http://www.php.net/cvs-php.php

Re: story posted

--On Wednesday, February 5, 2003 10:09 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is a bug in the way Apache autoconf's... OpenSSL and OpenLDAP should never be linked to the core... they should have been detected and added only to the modules/ssl and modules/ldap makefiles' C

Re: story posted

Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: You can also see text in our bug database from a prominent PHP developer saying that the filter API needs to be redone from scratch (my paraphrase). For the enthusiastic PHP users, such comments carry a lot of weight and imply that PHP isn't production ready with 2.0 not

Re: [PATCH] letting the app do something useful when apr_proc_create()fails in the child process

Jeff Trawick wrote: On Unix, some failures of apr_proc_create() are not noticed in the calling process and so apr_proc_create() returns APR_SUCCESS even though it failed. ++1 in concept. It has bugged me for a long time that httpd 2.0 only logs "Premature end of script headers" no matter what

Re: story posted

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Sascha Schumann wrote: > Now, we could solve both problems by using a handler and > the prefork MPM. But then, Apache 2.0+PHP is basically > Apache 1.3+PHP with a few extra modules thrown in. That's > how it appears to the end-user at least. I don't buy that

Re: story posted

> a) is PHP not production ready with Apache 2.0 because it was not high > enough priority for PHP to be tested? The current Apache 2 support in PHP is based on filters only. That however is not well-supported by the scripting engine which prefers real file objects as input. The n

Re: story posted

At 09:17 AM 2/5/2003, Jess M. Holle wrote: >Graham Leggett wrote: > >>Greg Stein wrote: >> >>>Some questions for thought: if we start banging out versions right and left, >>>then will people actually upgrade? Are we doomed to live with 1.3 forever? >>>Or do we have to stick with today's architectur

Re: story posted

At 10:25 AM -0500 2/5/03, Ben Hyde wrote: > >There is a fun transition in progress. The 1.3 crowd had a lot of people who were >very passionate about operational focus - i.e. apache embedded as a component in a >large complex system of other junk (people, business, middleware, whatever). >Over

Re: story posted

Jim Jagielski wrote: Bill Stoddard wrote: Running a threaded mpm on Linux is just not interesting today. The memory footprint of the server is reduced, but so is the performance (requests per second). Even worse, with the current Linux pthread implementation, the threaded MPM does not provide

Re: story posted

Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >You can also see text in our bug database from a prominent PHP developer >saying that the filter API needs to be redone from scratch (my >paraphrase). For the enthusiastic PHP users, such comments carry a lot >of weight and imply that PHP isn't production ready with 2.0 no

Re: story posted

Bill Stoddard wrote: > > Running a threaded mpm on Linux is just not interesting today. The > memory footprint of the server is reduced, but so is the performance > (requests per second). Even worse, with the current Linux pthread > implementation, the threaded MPM does not provide appreciably

Re: story posted

> You can also see text in our bug database from a prominent PHP developer > saying that the filter API needs to be redone from scratch (my > paraphrase). For the enthusiastic PHP users, such comments carry a lot > of weight and imply that PHP isn't production ready with 2.0 not because > no

Re: story posted

Jim Jagielski wrote: At 6:31 PM -0800 2/4/03, Greg Stein wrote: Some questions for thought: if we start banging out versions right and left, then will people actually upgrade? Are we doomed to live with 1.3 forever? Or do we have to stick with today's architecture to support binary compatibility

Re: story posted

Putting on my PR hat - we could do a better job of getting out 'talking points' ducks in line. Like Greg says that kind of marketing outreach is not us. All the points Greg touched on in that article should be in our talking points and there are more! There should be 3-5 points we make every-

html

HI all, is different to catch a normal .html file ( I mean not server parsed) and one parsed (like .php)? I can just read the file required from the request_rec and elaborate it (if it's .html) or I need a filter to catch the content (I'm sure I must do it for a parsed file)? Thanks!

Re: story posted

Graham Leggett wrote: Greg Stein wrote: Some questions for thought: if we start banging out versions right and left, then will people actually upgrade? Are we doomed to live with 1.3 forever? Or do we have to stick with today's architecture to support binary compatibility for N years? I thi

Re: story posted

At 6:31 PM -0800 2/4/03, Greg Stein wrote: > >Some questions for thought: if we start banging out versions right and left, >then will people actually upgrade? Are we doomed to live with 1.3 forever? >Or do we have to stick with today's architecture to support binary >compatibility for N years? > V

need help for redirection in my module

Hi all, i develop my own module for apache web server and i don't know how to do a redirection. i have an url to do this and a request_rec struct. Someone can help me to resolve this small problem?   Thanks in advance, Frédéric Vissault http://www.softandem.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Help needed

Hello all, can anyone tell me where to find the manuals on apcahe API functions ? I am attempting my first apache 2.0 module. Thanx and regards Sudhir K

Re: story posted

Jeff Trawick wrote: You can also see text in our bug database from a prominent PHP developer saying that the filter API needs to be redone from scratch (my paraphrase). For the enthusiastic PHP users, such comments carry a lot of weight and imply that PHP isn't production ready with 2.0 not bec

Proposed solution for bug #16056

(Please forgive the cross post, but I felt it relavent to the httpd group, since it impacts them and module developers such as myself.) Please find enclosed a proposed solution for the bug I posted last month: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16056 The source code comment

Mod_rewrite patch

Title: Mod_rewrite patch Hi,   addressing the bug 13946 at bugzilla, . I'm sending this patch.   The bug is caused by a reprocessing the rewrite request when using mod_rewrite + mod_proxy + mod_cache once the page is expired in the

Re: story posted

Joe Orton wrote: On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 06:31:10PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote: ... >Some questions for thought: if we start banging out versions right and left, >then will people actually upgrade? Are we doomed to live with 1.3 forever? >Or do we have to stick with today's architecture to suppor

Query regarding the logging in Apache Web Server

Hi, In my module, I'm trying to log a message at the debug level. Bit it is not getting logged, in spite of setting the LogLevel to debug within httpd.conf file. The message that I was trying to log does not have server_rec pointer. Instead, this parameter is passed as NULL. e.g., ap_l

Re: story posted

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 06:31:10PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote: ... > Some questions for thought: if we start banging out versions right and left, > then will people actually upgrade? Are we doomed to live with 1.3 forever? > Or do we have to stick with today's architecture to support binary > compatib