Hello,I'm working with QoS (quality of service) and I'm usingthe Apache web server to implement my QoS policy. Forthat, basically I'll need to intercept all incomingrequests in Apache and after that, to classify thisrequests in different queues, according with theirpriority. So, some questions:1) -
Graham Leggett wrote:
A question to ponder is just how generic should the cache be. An HTTP
cache requires cache entries containing data and headers, either of
which can be updated separately.
So any given HTTP "object" would actually be two objects in the cache:
headers and data.
As a r
Ian Holsman wrote:
This sounds like a good idea.
are you thinking of it being a config-time hook or a additional hook
in the request-processing stage?
I was thinking of very, very early in the request processing stage. 99%
of installs would just rely on the "core_virtual_host" handler.
-
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Brian Akins wrote:
Would it be considered offensive to do apr_thread_create() if threads are
available and fork() otherwise?
sounds reasonable - having only thought about it for 10 seconds..
OK. I'll try then and see how it plays out.
Any particular reason your backend
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
I might add that our FTP mirror has a bunch of DVD images, and even at
full gigabit speed it takes some 40 seconds to cache it and that's
simply too long before the server starts responding by sending data to
the client.
Probably a little OT, but why don't you just rsy
Tiago Semprebom wrote:
Hello,
I'm working with QoS (quality of service) and I'm using
the Apache web server to implement my QoS policy. For
that, basically I'll need to intercept all incoming
requests in Apache and after that, to classify this
requests in different queues, according with their
p
Thank´s for you reply Bill,Best regardsTiagoBill Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: Tiago Semprebom wrote:> Hello,> > I'm working with QoS (quality of service) and I'm using> the Apache web server to implement my QoS policy. For> that, basically I'll need to intercept all incoming> requests in
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 03:44:07AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: rooneg
> Date: Fri Apr 21 20:44:05 2006
> New Revision: 396063
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=396063&view=rev
> Log:
> Merge the fcgi-proxy-dev branch to trunk, adding a FastCGI back end for
> mod_proxy. This
On 4/28/06, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 03:44:07AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: rooneg
> Date: Fri Apr 21 20:44:05 2006
> New Revision: 396063
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=396063&view=rev
> Log:
> Merge the fcgi-proxy-dev branch to trunk
On 4/27/06, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know there are people who still hold the idealistic view that we
shouldn't be obscuring email addresses at all. Although I agree in
principle, I think the world has passed that view by.
I think that obfuscation is completely pointless. You
On 4/27/06, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
LibXML2 is released under the MIT license. From what I understand, some
parts of Apache2 are subject to the same license, so a project released
that's linking against LibXML2 would still fall under the terms of the
Apache License 2.x.
Does t
Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Does that seem right? If I'm releasing an apache2 module under the Apache
> >License, and it links against libxml2, do I need to mention the MIT license
> >in my own license, or does the Apache License 2 suffice?
>
> This question would be appropriat
On 4/28/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/27/06, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know there are people who still hold the idealistic view that we
> shouldn't be obscuring email addresses at all. Although I agree in
> principle, I think the world has passed that vi
On 4/28/06, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess it's a bit off-topic for [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would have sent it
to
legal-discuss in the first place, but that list is not open to the public.
:-(
You can send emails to it even if you aren't subscribed... -- justin
On 4/28/06, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I said, I'd love to agree with you. But why don't you try asking
100 random subscribers to our users lists or 100 random bug submitters
whether they think it is obvious that their email address will be made
public. A couple years ago, they
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/28/06, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I said, I'd love to agree with you. But why don't you try asking
100 random subscribers to our users lists or 100 random bug submitters
whether they think it is obvious that their email address will be made
public.
On 29/04/2006, at 4:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Welcome to the big bad Internet. Not everyone is nice. It's a
valuable lesson to learn.
We can do all of the obfuscation we want in mod_mbox, but spambots
*do* just subscribe to the lists. (We see them in the subscriber
lists.) So, we can
On 04/28/2006 11:45 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> On 29/04/2006, at 4:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>>
>> Welcome to the big bad Internet. Not everyone is nice. It's a
>> valuable lesson to learn.
>>
>> We can do all of the obfuscation we want in mod_mbox, but spambots
>> *do* just subscribe
According to RFC 2616, whenever a connection to a upstream server fails due to a
timeout (or DNS failure) the proxy server should return with status 504 (Gateway
Timeout).
--
Davi Arnaut
Index: mod_proxy_http.c
===
--- mod_proxy_ht
19 matches
Mail list logo
