It really depends on your needs. Check out IBM HTTP Server, that's an
IBM-built apache server. They're a number of releases behind, but they may
give you some pointers of what to include.
Yanbin Ma
-Original Message-
From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 30,
I got it working !
Here is my solution. Questions 1 & 4 still
remain.
The additional module (ssl_error) also works, although I
need to fine-tune it.
Feel free to criticize and enhance.
Marc
---
In 'ssl_hook_Access( )' (ssl_engine_kernel.c), the last line
can be replace
On 1-May-05, at 7:04 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
I found a description of the problem:
When Apache issues a redirect in response to a client request, the
response
includes some actual text to be displayed in case the client can't
(or doesn't)
automatically follow the redirection. Apache ordinarily la
Why do I suddenly have the "I Have A Dream" speech flashes? ;-)
- Dmitri.
Paul Querna wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think that most other developers agree that 2.1.x/trunk has enough
features for a 2.2.x GA branch.
I believe 2.1.x is a moving target.
I think it is hard to
--On Friday, April 29, 2005 3:45 PM -0700 Paul Querna
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am proposing the branch date be May 13, 2005.
++1. -- justin
I'm +1 for branching 2.2-alpha... However, there are 2 outstanding
show-stoppers. Do we expect these to be addressed before the branch.
I think so, especially if they require API changes
--On Monday, May 2, 2005 3:26 PM -0400 Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm +1 for branching 2.2-alpha... However, there are 2 outstanding
show-stoppers. Do we expect these to be addressed before the branch.
I think so, especially if they require API changes
Why couldn't we fix those up a
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> --On Monday, May 2, 2005 3:26 PM -0400 Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm +1 for branching 2.2-alpha... However, there are 2 outstanding
> > show-stoppers. Do we expect these to be addressed before the branch.
> > I think so, especially if they requ
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Why couldn't we fix those up after the branch? The point would be to
> stop making 2.1.x a moving target so that we can fix the showstoppers.
+1 on that. Not on the timing, though: I won't have time for apache
until after Xtech[1], so that's a definite abstension on
--On Monday, May 2, 2005 3:33 PM -0400 Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I thought the whole idea about having a 2.1 dev version was to avoid
monkeying around with the API and the problems when we were doing
1.3 and 2.0. Once we branch, it is possible that we'll run into
issues that may re
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> --On Monday, May 2, 2005 3:33 PM -0400 Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I thought the whole idea about having a 2.1 dev version was to avoid
> > monkeying around with the API and the problems when we were doing
> > 1.3 and 2.0. Once we branch, it is p
+1
Brad
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, April 29, 2005 4:45:19 PM >>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think that most other developers agree that 2.1.x/trunk has enough
features for a 2.2.x GA branch.
I believe 2.1.x is a moving target.
I think it is hard to stabilize a moving ta
On 5/2/05, Rici Lake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1-May-05, at 7:04 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > I found a description of the problem:
> >
> >> When Apache issues a redirect in response to a client request, the
> >> response
> >> includes some actual text to be displayed in case the client
Paul Querna wrote:
I am proposing the branch date be May 13, 2005.
Votes/Comments/Alternatives/Ideas/etc are all welcome.
+1 on branching. No preference on time, the sooner
the better IMO.
Sander
At 05:45 PM 4/29/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>I think that most other developers agree that 2.1.x/trunk has enough
>features for a 2.2.x GA branch.
+1
>I believe 2.1.x is a moving target.
+/- 0. I see the tree is fairly stable, has some decent bug fixing
activity, and nothing destabling. To the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Hi!
...
> Please feel free to ask questions. Thanks. -- justin
I would like to request a zone for httpd.
Thanks,
Paul
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> From discussion - I see us branching 2.1.x anyways, but still object
> since we will now be maintaining two or three backports for every
> bugfix commit to trunk/. Humbly suggest this isn't the conclusion
> we reached at AC Las Vegas, and suggest it's still the
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> From discussion - I see us branching 2.1.x anyways, but still object
>>since we will now be maintaining two or three backports for every
>>bugfix commit to trunk/. Humbly suggest this isn't the conclusion
>>we reached at AC Las Vegas, and
Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From discussion - I see us branching 2.1.x anyways, but still object
since we will now be maintaining two or three backports for every
bugfix commit to trunk/.
If the trees are so in sync that the same patch applies it's trivial
to do the backports
Sander Striker wrote:
>
> If the trees are so in sync that the same patch applies it's trivial
> to do the backports.
>
> The backport issue will still stay FWIW. If not now, it will come
> at the time we have 2.0 and 2.2 out there, and trunk is at 2.3-dev.
> It's not like we can drop support fo
At 05:26 PM 5/2/2005, Sander Striker wrote:
>>Bill makes some good points... it seems that branching would simply be
>>"renaming" trunk. The good thing is that with svn this is cheap
>>and easy, but will it really do what we want? Also, the "gotta
>>backport this to yet another branch" issue is val
At 04:48 PM 5/2/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>Personally, I have held off on starting refactors of code, because I do
>not want to be detrimental to the ability to make a 2.2 Branch.
>
>I would like to investigate making more parts of httpd async, in
>conjunction with the Event MPM. I would also like
22 matches
Mail list logo
