On Sun, 20 May 2007, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
FWIW, the full name of the TLP will be: Apache foo - so Apache
PyPache doesn't roll off the tongue very well...
Yes, Apache PyPache does sound a bit silly. My vote is then:
+1 Quetzalcoatl
Those who have not voted yet (there are hundreds of
+1 Scales
Apache Scales sounds simple enough. Although it seems to be an
underdog in this competition.
To confirm my vote in correct format:
+1 Quetzalcoatl
Graham
On 22/05/07, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
FWIW, the full name of the TLP will be: Apache foo - so Apache
PyPache doesn't roll off the tongue very well...
+1 Quetzalcoatl
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 5/17/07, Niklas Edmundsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has there been any progress on PR41230? I submitted a patch that at
least seems to improve the situation that now seems to have seen some
testing by others as well.
As I have stated before,
On May 19, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/19/2007 04:07 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On 5/18/07, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently ProxyTimeout does not work as documented as the default
value is not
300 secs, but the Timeout setting of the server. The question
On May 18, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 5/18/07, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, because rv == !OK, wouldn't the CACHE_REMOVE_URL filter hit?
That should do the dirty deed, no? -- justin
No, as the CACHE_REMOVE_URL filter will only work if there is a
On 5/17/07 10:26 PM, Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not a fan of the way the pools and hash tables are lazily
initialized, as it isn't thread safe and one of the nice things about
mod_wombat is its thread safety. Perhaps something that's initialized
during server startup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi group!
I wanted my module to announce itself on the Server: response header, so I
checked mod_ssl's source,
found ap_add_version_component(), and some googling provided the 1.3 version of
the
ap_add_version_component() call manual.
It had
On Mon, May 21, 2007 4:49 pm, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Does anybody see a problem with changing mod_cache to not update the
stored headers when the request has max-age=0, the body turns out
not to be stale and the on-disk header hasn't expired?
The rationale behind this is that there are
On 5/21/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 19, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/19/2007 04:07 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On 5/18/07, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently ProxyTimeout does not work as documented as the default
value is not
300 secs,
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Graham Leggett wrote:
Since max-age=0 requests can't be fulfilled without revalidating the
object they don't benefit from this header rewrite, and requests with
max-age!=0 that can benefit from the header rewrite won't be affected
by this change.
Am I making sense? Have I
On May 21, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Does anybody see a problem with changing mod_cache to not update
the stored headers when the request has max-age=0, the body turns
out not to be stale and the on-disk header hasn't expired?
Yes, the problem is that it will break content
On 5/5/07, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05.05.2007 04:25, Brian Hayward wrote:
BTW, I did test my patch when 1 host was down in a balancer
configuration. It still seemed to work well.
I would think so. My point was more about that with this setting the
response times of your
Brian Rectanus wrote:
Comments on the idea of this?
I was just going to point out that it's definitely useful being able to
specify separate connection and actual request timeouts. From a quick
look at your diff, you already have this in mind. :)
An example: with a reverse proxy, you
On 05/21/2007 11:29 PM, Stuart Children wrote:
It would be nice to have the connection timeout as a proper directive -
rather than only as a parameter to ProxyPass - so that people enabling
mod_proxy via other mechanisms can set it. Also so that you can set a
This issue is addressed on
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
At first glance, doing this I think will break RFC2616 compliance, and if
it does break RFC compliance then I think it should not be default
behaviour. However if it does solve a real problem for admins, then
having
a directive allowing the admin to enable this
On May 21, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Why don't you just add an ignore of cache-control on requests from
those stupid download managers? A simple BrowserMatch should do.
I am not quite sure what you mean by this. AFAIK you cannot set
CacheIgnoreCacheControl based on env
19 matches
Mail list logo
