Akins, Brian wrote:
This patch adds a new hook (request_status) that gets ran in proxy_handler
just before the final return. This gives modules an opportunity to do
something based on the proxy status.
A couple of examples where this is useful:
-You are using a caching module and would rather
"Jem Berkes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Have you considered using libapreq2 for parsing
>> the mime headers in there? The header parser
>> should really convenient for that, you could
>> even introduce a post-header-parser hook that
>> runs when the parser finishes.
>
> My own suggestion is t
Parin Shah wrote:
On 7/15/05, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:23:29AM -0500, Parin Shah wrote:
- we need to maintain a counter for url in this case which would
decide the priority of the url. But mainting this counter should be a
low overhead operation,
> Have you considered using libapreq2 for parsing
> the mime headers in there? The header parser
> should really convenient for that, you could
> even introduce a post-header-parser hook that
> runs when the parser finishes.
My own suggestion is that we don't touch or try to interpret MIME. Parsi
Joe Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jem Berkes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I think this granularity is required. But I'm not
>> sure about how the DATA hook would work?
>
> Have you considered using libapreq2 for parsing
> the mime headers in there? The header parser
> should reall
"Jem Berkes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this granularity is required. But I'm not
> sure about how the DATA hook would work?
Have you considered using libapreq2 for parsing
the mime headers in there? The header parser
should really convenient for that, you could
even introduce a post
I want to focus a bit on mod_smtpd design, in particular the protocol
module (which accepts connections and does the E/SMTP talking). I've seen
various ideas thrown around on what exactly the module should do. It would
be nice if we could come up with at least the high level design specs for
th
On 7/16/05, Graham Leggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Parin Shah wrote:
>
> > - I would prefer the approach where we maintain priority queue to keep
> > track of popularity. But again you guys have more insight and
> > understanding. so whichever approach you guys decide, I am ready to
> > work
Parin Shah wrote:
- I would prefer the approach where we maintain priority queue to keep
track of popularity. But again you guys have more insight and
understanding. so whichever approach you guys decide, I am ready to
work on it! ;-)
Beware of scope creep - we can always start with something
