On Tue, November 13, 2007 6:34 am, Paul Querna wrote:
> I've added mod_serf in r594425:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=594425
>
> I've grown exceptionally... tired of looking at mod_proxy. mod_serf is
> nice and tight at 440 lines or so.
>
> With just a little more work, I think
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Graham Leggett
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. November 2007 11:28
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: mod_serf is in trunk
>
>
> On Tue, November 13, 2007 6:34 am, Paul Querna wrote:
>
> > I've added mod_serf in r594425:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> I'll see that your fix is proposed for backport to 2.0.x, and
> developers will have a chance to approve it.
Thank you *so* much.
> Don't waste so much of your patience or others' over a one line
> patch which you can apply to n
When the MPM process handling the connection is or will be exiting, we
can incorrectly tell the client that the connection will be held open
after the current request. This can result in user intervention
(retry the POST?) or failures for some requests sent subsequently on
that connection.
The ca
Message d'origine-
> De : Paul Querna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : mardi 13 novembre 2007 05:34
> À : dev@httpd.apache.org
> Objet : mod_serf is in trunk
>
> I've added mod_serf in r594425:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=594425
>
> I've grown exceptionally... t
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Jeff Trawick
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. November 2007 14:31
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: keepalive connections and exiting MPM processes
>
>
> When the MPM process handling the connection is or will be exiting, we
> can incorrectly tell the cl
On Nov 13, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
When the MPM process handling the connection is or will be exiting, we
can incorrectly tell the client that the connection will be held open
after the current request. This can result in user intervention
(retry the POST?) or failures for some r
On Nov 13, 2007 8:57 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > Von: Jeff Trawick
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. November 2007 14:31
> > An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Betreff: keepalive connections and exiting MPM processes
>
> >
> >
> > When th
On Nov 12, 2007, at 11:34 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added mod_serf in r594425:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=594425
I've grown exceptionally... tired of looking at mod_proxy.
mod_serf is
nice and tight at 440 lines or so.
With just a little more work, I think it could b
On 11/13/07, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've added mod_serf in r594425:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=594425
Nice!
> I've grown exceptionally... tired of looking at mod_proxy. mod_serf is
> nice and tight at 440 lines or so.
A cool low number. Fits snugly with
On Nov 13, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Axel-Stephane SMORGRAV wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how would you do this with mod_serf:
ProxyPass /foo http://127.0.0.1/
ProxyPassReverse /foo http://127.0.0.1/
ProxyPassReverse /foo http://localhost/
I think the idea is that mod_serf is not intended to be a
On Nov 13, 2007 6:06 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree here. While I would see a benefit of providing a http(s) client
> API to httpd via serf and thus getting rid of the somewhat strange
> way mod_proxy_http does its requests to a backend system ,I see no
> benefit a
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 10:47:53AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I think the idea is that mod_serf is not intended to be a complete
> replacement for mod_proxy *at this time*... It's a cool start
> and a basis to build on.
>
The name makes me think of it as a provider module like httpd - in fact
I
On Nov 13, 2007 11:10 AM, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The name makes me think of it as a provider module like httpd - in fact
> I think that'd be quite useful (especially going by Justins reluctance
> to add it to apr-util which would have been my preferred location).
Exposing some lo
On Nov 13, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I find that mod_proxy is incredibly complex and doesn't even do the
things that it claims to do properly.
But it does NOT do the stuff it doesn't claim to do
quite well :)
Agreed that mod_proxy has the potential of joining the ranks
On 11/13/07 8:30 AM, "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Note that the condition evaluation order is extremely important.
> @@ -212,7 +214,8 @@
> && (!apr_table_get(r->subprocess_env, "nokeepalive")
> || apr_table_get(r->headers_in, "Via"))
> && ((ka
On 11/13/07 11:28 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed that mod_proxy has the potential of joining the ranks
> of mod_rewrite and mod_ssl as the Modules Most Likely To Make
> One Lose Their Minds And Run Screaming Hysterically Through
> The Halls.
We found it much easier to wr
On 11/13/2007 05:13 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007 11:10 AM, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The name makes me think of it as a provider module like httpd - in fact
>> I think that'd be quite useful (especially going by Justins reluctance
>> to add it to apr-util which w
On 11/13/2007 10:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Tue Nov 13 13:55:05 2007
> New Revision: 594659
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=594659&view=rev
> Log:
> Add extremely butt-ugly sub-mod that exists simply to show how
> to use providers in sub-mods to extend lbmeth
On 11/13/2007 04:39 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007 6:06 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree here. While I would see a benefit of providing a http(s) client
>> API to httpd via serf and thus getting rid of the somewhat strange
>> way mod_proxy_http d
On Nov 13, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/13/2007 10:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Isn't this an endless loop if all workers (standby *and* not
standby) are in error mode?
I guess it is reasonable to return NULL in this case and let
mod_proxy_balancer handl
On Nov 13, 2007, at 5:14 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/13/2007 10:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Isn't this an endless loop if all workers (standby *and* not
standby) are in error mode?
I guess it is reasonable to return
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/13/2007 04:39 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I find that mod_proxy is incredibly complex and doesn't even do the
things that it claims to do properly. Rather than spend an inordinate
amount of time trying to fix it, I think we'd be better off trying to
go in a comple
23 matches
Mail list logo