On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:05:09 +0200
Holger Moser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
To keep a long storry short: i have an apache module that sets an
ouput-filter (besides other things), does validate/mangle the data. so
far so good. my question now is how can i get apache to generate an
Hi,
I am having my module with output filter which parses the
bucket_brigades of response, i have chained the filter with module
inflate and deflate for compressing and decompressing data into
response. While chaining the data i found some of the contents of the
response has lost and response
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
Many thanks to Ruediger for reviewing 2.0 and 2.2 so far, and to both
Jim and Jeff for their reviews of current/2.2 modern flavors. I could
use a set of eyeballs on the final log.c patch for 2.2, and the patch
set for our old 'n crusty 2.0.
I'm especially interested if any Win32 folks want to
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: William A. Rowe, Jr.
Gesendet: Montag, 27. August 2007 10:28
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r569947 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
So the model didn't work, and for NT I propose to stop inheriting the
handles other than
Just wondering if there is any plans on addressing Bug #39727, incorrect
ETag on gzip:ed content (mod_deflate).
Been pretty silent for a long while now, and the current implementation
is a clear violation of RFC2616 and makes a mess of any shared cache
trying to cache responses from mod_deflate
I'm not proposing a solution but just pointing out that if this discussion
is going to come up once again that even the latest, greatest versions
of one of the most popular browsers in the world, Microsoft Internet
Explorer, will still REFUSE TO CACHE any response that shows up
with a Vary: on
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:29:36 +0200
Henrik Nordstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering if there is any plans on addressing Bug #39727,
incorrect ETag on gzip:ed content (mod_deflate).
In the absence of a better suggestion, I'd be +1 for the little
hack you suggest in Comment #10. Bug me
You are the CNN guy, right?
Of your 30 percent... is there an identifiable User-Agent
that comprises a visible chunk of the requests?
If so... what is it?
Yours...
Kevin Kiley
In a message dated 8/27/2007 10:09:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 8/27/07 12:34 PM,
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Many thanks to Ruediger for reviewing 2.0 and 2.2 so far, and to both
Jim and Jeff for their reviews of current/2.2 modern flavors. I could
use a set of eyeballs on the final log.c patch for 2.2, and the patch
set for our old 'n crusty 2.0.
I'm especially interested
On 8/27/07 1:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are the CNN guy, right?
Sure, why not...
Of your 30 percent... is there an identifiable User-Agent
that comprises a visible chunk of the requests?
If so... what is it?
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS?rev=570074r1=570073r2=570074view=diff
==
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
On 08/27/2007 06:45 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:29:36 +0200
Henrik Nordstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering if there is any plans on addressing Bug #39727,
incorrect ETag on gzip:ed content (mod_deflate).
In the absence of a better suggestion, I'd be +1 for the
On 08/27/2007 09:17 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS?rev=570074r1=570073r2=570074view=diff
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/27/2007 09:17 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Yes, I'm a vim user who always forgets modern linux is happy to navigate and
stay in insert mode ;-) That file will not be applied, please ignore (it's
I thought just that ;-). Happened to me hundred times before.
On mån, 2007-08-27 at 13:09 -0400, Akins, Brian wrote:
On 8/27/07 12:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hasn't the non-compressed variant become an extreme edge-case
by now? I would certainly hope so.
Unfortunately not. About 30% of our requests do not advertise gzip
On mån, 2007-08-27 at 22:00 +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
But without an adjusted conditional checking this leads to a failure
of conditional requests. And I currently do not see how we can adjust
ap_meets_conditions. As I understand 13.3.3 of RFC2616 the DEFLATE_OUT
filter transforms a
Plüm wrote:
I wouldn't say that it is a no-op on Unix. Some logger programs might
expect an open stderr, even if this points to /dev/null. So I am not in
favour of this patch. Besides I understood that we no longer support
Win9x. So why making an exception here?
IMHO if things do not work
18 matches
Mail list logo
