That makes sence and explains why i couldn't use a HEAD request to ge the content-lenght of a list of file while mod_deflate was on.On 7/18/06, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> I might be getting this all wrong but doesn't the Content-Lenght require> mod_defl
To remove your address from the list, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 2006-17-07 at 20:07 -0400, sarvothaman vittal wrote:
>
--gh
On 7/17/06, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have reverted the ifneq in r422925. Any suggestions on how to best go
around making this configured from configure?
EXTRA_PROGRAMS=
case $host in
*mingw*)
;;
*)
EXTRA_PROGRAMS="fcgisupport blah blah blah"
;;
esac
AC_SUBST(EXTRA_PROGR
Joe Orton wrote:
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 12:22:32AM +0200, André Malo wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/support/Makefile.in
+ifneq (win32,${OS})
+ PROGRAMS += checkgid fcgistarter
+endif
+
I'm not a Makefile guru, but that doesn't look really portable (or do we
re
On 7/17/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:> With the notice up at
http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html, is the> ASF> in a position to start publishing binaries containing crypto?No. We know what needs to be done, but the steps are
tis 2006-07-18 klockan 00:47 +0200 skrev Ruediger Pluem:
> And this is exactly the question: Is it ok for
> the HEAD response to differ from the GET response with respect to T-E
> and C-L headers
It's not in case of C-L. For a starter HEAD is used by quite many robots
with simplistic caches to ve
On 07/18/2006 12:43 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>>
> the question i'm asking is why bother.
Ok, now I understand.
>
> how many HEADs would a typical site get?
Dunno, but I stumbled across as I found out that doing a "save as" on a link
with Mozilla
causes a HEAD and a GET.
> I'd imagine about
On 07/18/2006 12:06 AM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> I might be getting this all wrong but doesn't the Content-Lenght require
> mod_deflate to run? for the correct lenght to be set?
Not really, because provided that you do not compress a very small body the
response
is send as T-E chunked. But in t
On 18/07/2006, at 8:06 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
(I can't think of any which do this BTW)
are you seeing a problem somewhere Ruediger?
The biggest problem at the moment is that I fear that I do not get
your point correctly :-).
So some explanations from your side would be very helpful to
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I might be getting this all wrong but doesn't the Content-Lenght require
mod_deflate to run? for the correct lenght to be set?
If we won't send content-length, but instead send content-encoding chunked,
then there's no reason to compute content length, no reason to refilt
On 07/17/2006 11:50 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
> personally I think GET & HEAD processing should be identical until the
> very last moment.
Agreed in general, but in the case of mod_deflate doing a compression on
a HEAD wastes an unnecessary high count of CPU cycles IMHO.
> this avoids bugs creepi
I might be getting this all wrong but doesn't the Content-Lenght require mod_deflate to run? for the correct lenght to be set?On 7/17/06, Ian Holsman <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:personally I think GET & HEAD processing should be identical until
the very last moment.this avoids bugs creeping in which
personally I think GET & HEAD processing should be identical until
the very last moment.
this avoids bugs creeping in which process the body for some reason
and add a header after mod_deflate is run
(I can't think of any which do this BTW)
are you seeing a problem somewhere Ruediger?
regards
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
With the notice up at http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html, is the ASF
in a position to start publishing binaries containing crypto?
No. We know what needs to be done, but the steps are
1) write the export page
On Jul 17, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
With the notice up at http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html, is the
ASF
in a position to start publishing binaries containing crypto?
No. We know what needs to be done, but the steps are
1) write the export page
a) add all the dis
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I could find no http://www.apache.org/export.html, or
http://apr.apache.org/export.html yet, or am I jumping the gun?
Yup :) I started a thread suggesting the export resource page contents
for the apr project, but I don't think we've committed anything just yet.
St
Deron Meranda wrote:
> Just want some verification because I haven't seen anything
> official looking
>
> Is 3.2.9 now considered a bad release because of its memory
> leaks, and thus will never be released?
It's not so much that it's a bad release, but rather it didn't make
sense to offici
Just want some verification because I haven't seen anything
official looking
Is 3.2.9 now considered a bad release because of its memory
leaks, and thus will never be released? Hence 3.2.10 will be
the next hopeful stable release after 3.2.8?
--
Deron Meranda
Graham Leggett wrote:
On Mon, July 17, 2006 4:57 pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
- Inform users with a crypto notice in the distribution's README and
download pages.
Does placing a README file at the point of download cover this? Does a
new release need to be made with the notice inside the di
The following patch avoids that the deflate output filter wastes cycles in
compressing the body of a header only request that gets thrown away by http
header filter afterwards anyway.
OTH a HEAD and a GET request differ regarding regarding the T-E and C-L headers
(everything else is the same). So I
On Mon, July 17, 2006 4:57 pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Getting closer.
Cool :)
>> - Inform users with a crypto notice in the distribution's README and
>> download pages.
>>
>> Does placing a README file at the point of download cover this? Does a
>> new release need to be made with the not
Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
With the notice up at http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html, is the ASF
in a position to start publishing binaries containing crypto?
Getting closer.
More specifically, I would like to make the mod_ssl*.rpm binary files
available that to date were built but neve
Hi all,
With the notice up at http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html, is the ASF
in a position to start publishing binaries containing crypto?
More specifically, I would like to make the mod_ssl*.rpm binary files
available that to date were built but never published.
From the crypto.html page,
Joe Orton wrote:
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 12:22:32AM +0200, André Malo wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/support/Makefile.in
+ifneq (win32,${OS})
+ PROGRAMS += checkgid fcgistarter
+endif
+
I'm not a Makefile guru, but that doesn't look really portable (or do we
re
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 12:22:32AM +0200, André Malo wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/support/Makefile.in
>
> > +ifneq (win32,${OS})
> > + PROGRAMS += checkgid fcgistarter
> > +endif
> > +
>
> I'm not a Makefile guru, but that doesn't look really portable (o
25 matches
Mail list logo
