On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Paul Querna wrote:
> Any other opinions about not including these MPMs?
Basically agree.
But modules are on a sliding scale between fully-working and broken.
We have modules/experimental that includes pre-stable stuff that may
or may not get fixed within a reasonable timescal
Do we want to include the experimental MPMs in the 2.2 GA Branch?
Currently the MPMs in server/mpm/experimental are:
- leader
- perchild
- threadpool
I hope to add the 'event' MPM to this list soon, but I have been
distracted rewriting apr_pollset to better work with multiple threads.
(IE maki
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 12:53:02AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Sander Striker wrote:
>
> >The tarballs for 2.1.0-rc1 (tag: STRIKER_2_1_0_RC1) are now located
> >at the usual location:
> >
> > http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> >
> >Note that the 2.1 tarball does _not_ come prepackaged with AP
Sander Striker wrote:
The tarballs for 2.0.51-rc2 (tag: STRIKER_2_0_51_RC2) are now located
at the usual location:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please test and report any problems. Thanks!
The RPM build seems to build and work fine under RHEL3.
+1
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description:
Sander Striker wrote:
The tarballs for 2.1.0-rc1 (tag: STRIKER_2_1_0_RC1) are now located
at the usual location:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Note that the 2.1 tarball does _not_ come prepackaged with APR, you will
have to get the 1.0 version of apr and apr-util seperately at:
http://apr.a
--On Thursday, September 2, 2004 9:37 PM +0100 Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yeah, it is supposed to be like that, but the last cog hadn't quite
fallen into place: I fixed it just now for the next 2.1 build.
FWIW, I was waiting for APR 1.0.0 to go gold first before flipping that
switch. A
At 03:29 PM 9/2/2004, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>ok, I see what is going on. I forgot I had an old installation in
>/usr/local/apache2, and that looks to be what was found - removing
>apr-config and apu-config from that installation and everything is fine.
>
>still, I thought that APR 1.0 used apr-[m
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:29:15PM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> ok, I see what is going on. I forgot I had an old installation in
> /usr/local/apache2, and that looks to be what was found - removing
> apr-config and apu-config from that installation and everything is fine.
>
> still, I thought
> Huh?
>
> % ./configure
> checking for chosen layout... Apache
> checking for working mkdir -p... yes
> checking build system type... powerpc-apple-darwin7.5.0
> checking host system type... powerpc-apple-darwin7.5.0
> checking target system type... powerpc-apple-darwin7.5.0
>
> Configuring Apa
At 12:59 PM 9/2/2004, Mladen Turk wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>>Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
>>>future 2.0.x release
>>[...] please don't expect them
>>to sympathize when n.x.z -> n.x.(z+1) starts breaking things, this
>>undermines the confidence
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
Tomcats.
Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
future 2.0.x release
Admins understand why n.x -> (
--On Thursday, September 2, 2004 12:24 PM -0400 Geoffrey Young
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also, it might be nice for configure (or some earlier step) to determine
that the required APR foo wasn't found and balk at that step. or wherever
makes sense to those more familiar with the build system th
--On Thursday, September 2, 2004 12:24 PM -0400 Geoffrey Young
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I certainly understand the reason for this. however, I can't find any
documentation in the RC that notes the separation or gives useful APR
information - 2.0 was compile and go, while shipping 2.1 without A
At 09:25 AM 9/2/2004, Henri Gomez wrote:
>Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
>2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
>Tomcats.
>
>Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
>future 2.0.x release, since Gra
> I say something akin because just specifying
> --with-apr=/foo/apr-1-config and --with-apu=/foo/apu-1-config isn't
> sufficient for me to get it to compile (the config process is somehow
> picking up an old /usr/include/apr-0 for me, despite my pointing to
> ap(r|u)-1-config files in a fully-func
I am seeing a double free happening on a removed
cache entry on my MP box.
It is a race condition that is happening because of
the way apr_atomic_dec is implemented on NetWare.
I should have a fix for it later today.
JJ
> Note that the 2.1 tarball does _not_ come prepackaged with APR, you will
> have to get the 1.0 version of apr and apr-util seperately at:
>
> http://apr.apache.org/download.cgi
I certainly understand the reason for this. however, I can't find any
documentation in the RC that notes the separ
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Henri Gomez wrote:
> Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
> 2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
> Tomcats.
>
> Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
> future 2.0.x release, since
From: "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:19 PM
> Did there is latest AJP/MOD_PROXY stuff in this one ?
Almost latest. I tagged it three days ago. Any changes after that
are not in there. I plan on rolling rc2 at my next free interval
which will include the
Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
Tomcats.
Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
future 2.0.x release, since Graham, Mladen and Jean-Frederic works
hard to mak
At 07:55 AM 9/2/2004, Henri Gomez wrote:
>Should we see the works on mod_proxy and ajp support in the upcoming 2.0.51 ?
No, not in 2.0.51 (and to your following question of 2.0.x later
releases, also likely no.)
Yes, in 2.1.0.
It was commented that mod_proxy is becoming quite stable - bug
fixes
Did there is latest AJP/MOD_PROXY stuff in this one ?
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:14:06 +0200, Sander Striker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The tarballs for 2.1.0-rc1 (tag: STRIKER_2_1_0_RC1) are now located
> at the usual location:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Note that the 2.1
Hi,
The tarballs for 2.0.51-rc2 (tag: STRIKER_2_0_51_RC2) are now located
at the usual location:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please test and report any problems. Thanks!
Sander
Hi,
The tarballs for 2.1.0-rc1 (tag: STRIKER_2_1_0_RC1) are now located
at the usual location:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Note that the 2.1 tarball does _not_ come prepackaged with APR, you will
have to get the 1.0 version of apr and apr-util seperately at:
http://apr.apache.org/down
Should we see the works on mod_proxy and ajp support in the upcoming 2.0.51 ?
Regards
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Manos Moschous wrote:
> (a dumb subject line)
> I have a file opened
>
> FILE *fcp;
> fcp = fopen(file_to_save, "wb");
using the apr_ file API is preferred.
> //I want to save the data to the file
> //How can i do that
The tmpfile_filter in mod_upload does that. Feel f
Hi,
I have a file opened
FILE *fcp;
fcp = fopen(file_to_save, "wb");
while (ap_get_brigade(rp->input_filters, bb, AP_MODE_READBYTES,
APR_BLOCK_READ,
conf->io_buffer_size) == APR_SUCCESS)
{
//I want to save the data to the file
//How can i do that
//fw
27 matches
Mail list logo
