Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:47 PM -0500 Bill Stoddard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have to responds to this (even though I am up to my ears in other
work)... If bb contains -any- bytes after after the call to
ap_get_brigade(), then there is something wrong (that is
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Manni Wood wrote:
> Kind of funny. While reading all these helpful e-mails, I was telling
> myself "so really, what I need to do is build some sort of state
> machine..." and there the phrase was in your latest e-mail.
> OK, so with everybody's help, I think I have everything
Cliff:
Kind of funny. While reading all these helpful e-mails, I was telling myself "so
really, what I need to do is build some sort of state machine..." and there the phrase
was in your latest e-mail.
OK, so with everybody's help, I think I have everything I need (most especially the
outline
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Manni Wood wrote:
> Interesting you should mention this. An older version of the patch I
> wrote (I've been working on the problem off an on for over a year) did
> what you said: loop over the delimiters and parse each name=value pair
> into an apache table. Then, I asked the
yup, the = should also be escaped when in "".
Kind Regards,
Sander Holthaus
- Original Message -
From: "Manni Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:31 PM
Subject: RE: mod_usertrack bugfix patch
Yes, that's right, and thanks for the reminde
Yes, that's right, and thanks for the reminder. As my code crawls down the cookie
header, it will have to know whether or not it is inside or outside "" to know whether
or not ',' and ';' (and even '='? I'll have to check the RFC) are significant.
-Manni
There's still a small flaw here. Semicolons or comma's between "" should be
escaped.
- Original Message -
From: "Manni Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:13 PM
Subject: RE: mod_usertrack bugfix patch
Cliff,
Interesting you should mentio
So John, would you agree with the response I just sent to Cliff?
-Manni
Manni Wood, Programmer, Digitas
800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA, 02199
617 867 1881 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Most men would rather die than think. Many do."--Bertrand Russell
---
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:59:41 -0500 (EST)
>From: Cliff Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I'm still unclear why this requires a full-blown regex. Isn't all we
>really need to do to loop over the delimiters (semicolon and comma),
>remove whitespac
Cliff,
Interesting you should mention this. An older version of the patch I wrote (I've been
working on the problem off an on for over a year) did what you said: loop over the
delimiters and parse each name=value pair into an apache table. Then, I asked the
apache table if the cookie was presen
Well, is a bit difficult. As I said, am a PERL-programmer, and in Perl I use
substr above regexp since it is (much) faster. I guess this goes for C (or
any program language) as well. However, this would complicate the code a
quite bit more as a regexp.
Perhaps you can give a percentage of how much
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Manni Wood wrote:
> So does this mean that you now agree that I should be using a regexp to
> find the cookie? I think that's what you mean.
I'm still unclear why this requires a full-blown regex. Isn't all we
really need to do to loop over the delimiters (semicolon and comm
Sander,
So does this mean that you now agree that I should be using a regexp to find the
cookie? I think that's what you mean.
Also, thank you very much for reminding me that RFC 2109 says a comma, as well as a
semi-colon, can be used to separate cookies in the cookie header. I'll incorporate
As a PERL-programmer, I cannot help you. What I can tell you is that your
patch does not fully comply with RFC 2109. The seperator for cookies is ;
BUT , should also be reserved for this purpose. The regex should include the
, as well as the ; as seperators.
Kind Regards,
Sander Holthaus
- Or
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:47 PM -0500 Bill Stoddard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have to responds to this (even though I am up to my ears in other
work)... If bb contains -any- bytes after after the call to
ap_get_brigade(), then there is something wrong (that is
I suppose I should have put more details at
http://www.manniwood.net/mod_usertrack_patch.html about my results running a patched
vs. unpatched version of my code through a JMeter test, but as my web page says, the
patch adds a couple of milliseconds to the request time. Is there any standard way
--On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:47 PM -0500 Bill Stoddard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have to responds to this (even though I am up to my ears in other
work)... If bb contains -any- bytes after after the call to
ap_get_brigade(), then there is something wrong (that is fixable)
in the filter st
Index: server/protocol.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/server/protocol.c,v
retrieving revision 1.127
diff -u -r1.127 protocol.c
--- server/protocol.c3 Feb 2003 17:53:19 -1.127
+++ server/protocol.c24 Feb 2003 17:03
At 11:04 AM 2/25/2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:20 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL
>PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>What do you mean? Returning a non-apr_status_t result? We just
>>got finished hashing that out - since filters are APR brigade based,
>>then they
--On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:20 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do you mean? Returning a non-apr_status_t result? We just
got finished hashing that out - since filters are APR brigade based,
then they must return a recognizable apr_status_t value. If you
w
At 02:42 AM 2/25/2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
[...]
I agree with 95% of all your observations, so I'll just focus on a few
discrepancies.
>--On Monday, February 24, 2003 12:21 PM -0500 Bill Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>+rv = read_request_line(f->next, r, b, mode);
>>+
Justin,
Thanks for the review. It'll be a while before I have time to respond.
This week is booking up fast :-(
Bill
> performance concern a.k.a. dumb question... is a regexp required for
> fixing this problem?
Same thought here. I do the same in PERL through substr instead of RegExp
'cause of the performance.
Kind Regards,
Sander Holthaus.
Just able to run through it now... +1 from me.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > You mean the code running after ap_process_connection() has returned?
> > Yes, that works for me. Here is a new patch:
>
> make it so... I don't see anybody else chiming in...
>
--
=
Stas Bekman wrote:
You mean the code running after ap_process_connection() has returned?
Yes, that works for me. Here is a new patch:
make it so... I don't see anybody else chiming in...
Manni Wood wrote:
I am submitting a patch to mod_usertrack for both Apache 2.0 and 1.3
for your consideration.
The patch fixes a bug where the use of strstr() to find the name of
the cookie in the cookieheader can accidentally "find" the name of the
cookie in what is actually the contents of a
Great, I appreciate it.
This is not only open source... it's open mind and
open knowledge!
Fantastic :)
--- Greg Ames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: >
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> >>Anyway,any suggestion on some modules for apache
> 2.x
> >>that filter the output (I need to modify the
> html).
--On Monday, February 24, 2003 12:21 PM -0500 Bill Stoddard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. HTTP header parsing moved out of protocol.c and into the HTTP_IN
filter (ap_http_filter in http_protocol.c)
My biggest problem here is wondering where you are reading the
headers. If you are using the filte
28 matches
Mail list logo
