On Tue, November 13, 2007 6:34 am, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added mod_serf in r594425:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=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
-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 new
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
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=revrevision=594425
I've grown exceptionally... tired of
-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 client
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
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 the MPM process
On Nov 12, 2007, at 11:34 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added mod_serf in r594425:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=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
On 11/13/07, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've added mod_serf in r594425:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=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 the
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
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 at all
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
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
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_sent =
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 write our
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 would
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=594659view=rev
Log:
Add extremely butt-ugly sub-mod that exists simply to show how
to use providers in sub-mods to extend lbmethods in
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 does its
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
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo