2.0.54 Windows Source

2005-04-21 Thread Fenlason, Josh
Title: Message I was just wondering if the 2.0.54 Windows source will be available soon.  Thanks. , Josh.

Re: 2.0.54 Windows Source

2005-04-21 Thread Ben Collins-Sussman
On Apr 21, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Fenlason, Josh wrote: I was just wondering if the 2.0.54 Windows source will be available soon.  Thanks. , Josh. It's sitting in http://apache.mirrors.versehost.com/httpd/ ?

RE: 2.0.54 Windows Source

2005-04-21 Thread Fenlason, Josh
Thanks. -Original Message- From: Ben Collins-Sussman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:10 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: 2.0.54 Windows Source On Apr 21, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Fenlason, Josh wrote: > I was just wondering if the 2.0.54 Windows source wil

RFC: Who owns a passed brigade?

2005-04-21 Thread Rici Lake
After a filter calls ap_pass_brigade(f->next, bb), who owns bb? The name of the function might lead one to believe that ownership of the brigade was transferred, but inspection of distributed filters shows that it has not been; both mod_deflate and mod_include expect the brigade to be usable (an

RFC: Name Based Virtual Host Callback

2005-04-21 Thread Paul Querna
I am working on adding TLS 1.1 Server Name Indication(SNI) support to mod_gnutls[1]. SNI allows a client to say which host name they are using, inside the TLS handshake, before we decide which certificate to send. In effect this allows virtual hosting of SSL Sites, with a single IP Address, removi

Re: RFC: Who owns a passed brigade?

2005-04-21 Thread Paul Querna
Rici Lake wrote: > After a filter calls ap_pass_brigade(f->next, bb), who owns bb? ..snip.. > I note that apr_brigade_split() seems to be oriented towards a model > where ownership of the brigade is passed, since it creates a new > brigade. For the model where brigade ownership is retained, it woul

Re: RFC: Who owns a passed brigade?

2005-04-21 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Paul Querna wrote: > I agree that not having a clear rule has led to some possible leaks in > many filters. If some people think there has always been a 'rule', I > contend that it has never been documented. That may be. I *believe* the rule was supposed to be that once you

Re: RFC: Who owns a passed brigade?

2005-04-21 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Paul Querna wrote: > I agree that not having a clear rule has led to some possible leaks in > many filters. If some people think there has always been a 'rule', I > contend that it has never been documented. FWIW, the documentation says:

Re: RFC: Who owns a passed brigade?

2005-04-21 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Cliff Woolley wrote: > "The caller relinquishes ownership of the brigade." So that documentation came about because of this thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-httpd-dev&m=106952637722748&w=2 I'm not sure that the thread reflected reality, though. Perhaps it *s

Re: RFC: Who owns a passed brigade?

2005-04-21 Thread Rici Lake
On 21-Apr-05, at 3:58 PM, Cliff Woolley wrote: FWIW, the documentation says: "The caller relinquishes ownership of the brigade." This obviously differs from what some of our own filters are doing -- and from my memory of past history. It makes sense that it should be this way, though I think at s

Re: RFC: Who owns a passed brigade?

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Kew
Rici Lake wrote: > FWIW, I think the (apparent) practice, where the caller relinquishes > ownership of the buckets but not the brigade itself, is more efficient > since it avoids a lot of brigade construction and destruction. Agreed. And it works for any situation, as either party can do a clean

Re: RFC: Who owns a passed brigade?

2005-04-21 Thread Rici Lake
On 21-Apr-05, at 5:51 PM, Nick Kew wrote: Rici Lake wrote: FWIW, I think the (apparent) practice, where the caller relinquishes ownership of the buckets but not the brigade itself, is more efficient since it avoids a lot of brigade construction and destruction. Agreed. And it works for any situati

Re: mod_cache caching the 301 Moved Permanently

2005-04-21 Thread Devendra Singh
At 21/04/05 10:04 (), Devendra Singh wrote: Hi, I am writing to the Developer List because I did not get any response on the Users List and thought that the topic might be relevant to the dev list. If a request comes for a directory w/o trailing slash, it gets cached and the subsequent requests

Re: mod_cache caching the 301 Moved Permanently

2005-04-21 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:04:54AM +0530, Devendra Singh wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing to the Developer List because I did not get any response on > the Users List and thought that the topic might be relevant to the dev list. > > If a request comes for a directory w/o trailing slash, it gets cac

Re: mod_cache caching the 301 Moved Permanently

2005-04-21 Thread Olaf van der Spek
On 4/22/05, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:04:54AM +0530, Devendra Singh wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am writing to the Developer List because I did not get any response on > > the Users List and thought that the topic might be relevant to the dev list. > > >