Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007, at 10:16 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 8:47 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jeff Trawick
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007 14:21
An:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:43:02 +0200 (SAST)
Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order for a generic parser to be even a little bit generic, I would
expect it to be possible to pass a pointer to a comparison function
capable of being triggered when a token -Something is encountered.
On Wed, November 28, 2007 2:31 am, Nick Kew wrote:
I've extracted the expression parser from mod_include into an
ap_expr.c file. It was surprisingly straightforward, and loses
none of the functionality of mod_include[1].
The API now includes a string parser function, used where mod_include
On Wed, November 28, 2007 1:06 pm, Nick Kew wrote:
Agreed. As it happens, I started on exactly that this morning,
before having to turn my attention away from hacking. With a bit
of luck I'll find the time to come up with something working
this evening or tomorrow. I expect this to answer
On 11/28/07 3:39 AM, jean-frederic clere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the question is should we go on using scoreboard to store the
balancers and workers information
No. There were a couple of alternatives discussed a few (?) months ago. I
know I showed some per-module scoreboard example
On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:39 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
One of the question is should we go on using scoreboard to store the
balancers and workers information or should we already add a layer
to a
provider that will provide all the features we need to handle the
balancers and workers
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:39 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
One of the question is should we go on using scoreboard to store the
balancers and workers information or should we already add a layer to a
provider that will provide all the features we need to handle the
balancers
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:39 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
One of the question is should we go on using scoreboard to store the
balancers and workers information or should we already add a
layer to a
provider that will
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:17:16 -0500
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 11:50 AM, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:38:28 -0500
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the intention for the UNHANDLED case?The code/comments
seem to
On 11/28/07 11:20 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed.
However, we should have an httpd api that will allow
module to register his own shared memory, that will
be managed and handled like scoreboard with probably
the 'generation' extension to allow graceful restarts
with
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:03:19 -0500
Subra A Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am still not able to figure out the problem. For longtime module
developers, this should be a simple problem to solve.
Any pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
What's wrong with apxs/2?
Should we also break out the bndm stuff from mod_include as well? I have
used in a few modules.
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
You have forgotten to attach your module can you do it please?
2007/11/28, Subra A Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am still not able to figure out the problem. For longtime module
developers, this should be a simple problem to solve.
Any pointers in the right direction would be greatly
Here you go Karim.
On Nov 28, 2007 1:23 PM, karim Bendadda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have forgotten to attach your module can you do it please?
2007/11/28, Subra A Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am still not able to figure out the problem. For longtime module
developers, this
On 11/28/07 1:41 PM, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This code is simply a scoreboard callback.
We were talking of the API that would allow module to
register the 'shared memory intention'. Then the
core will take care of creating/attaching/removing the shared
memory. It will be
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 11/28/07 1:41 PM, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This code is simply a scoreboard callback.
We were talking of the API that would allow module to
register the 'shared memory intention'. Then the
core will take care of creating/attaching/removing the shared
I have a need to possible add more variables to mod_include (ie, DATE_LOCAL,
DOCUMENT_URI) and also to have the variable act like tables. Something like
$CNNVAR{foo}. I was thinking that we could have get_include_var (and
others) to use providers. Mod_include would only provide providers for
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 11/28/07 11:20 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed.
However, we should have an httpd api that will allow
module to register his own shared memory, that will
be managed and handled like scoreboard with probably
the 'generation' extension to allow graceful
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:38:50 -0500
Akins, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a need to possible add more variables to mod_include (ie,
DATE_LOCAL, DOCUMENT_URI) and also to have the variable act like
tables. Something like $CNNVAR{foo}. I was thinking that we could
have get_include_var
On 11/28/07 2:54 PM, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as in ap_register_include_handler?
No. As in want to have other variables in addition to the environment and
the special httpd ones (like DATE_LOCAL, DOCUMENT_URI).
Pseudo code:
Where would you propose to use it?
Like:
!--#if
On 11/28/2007 12:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rederpj
Date: Tue Nov 27 15:06:44 2007
New Revision: 598806
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=598806view=rev
Log:
Refactoring stage 2. This commit moves a large chunk of utility code out to
its own function
to make reading
I had a handfull of extra bits to burn? Checking again if anyone was watching?
Actually, the rest of the code that used it was removed but I missed
that line and the declaration. I'll fix that in the next commit...
Good catch, thanks for checking.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/28/2007 12:06
Not that you knew, but I had one more commit in the series I was about to do
which is
now made more interesting by the style changes. :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rpluem
Date: Wed Nov 28 13:17:03 2007
New Revision: 599150
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=599150view=rev
Log:
* No
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:19:42 -0500
Akins, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we also break out the bndm stuff from mod_include as well? I
have used in a few modules.
I haven't looked at that specifically, but I think it likely there's
a good case for it. Are you volunteering to hack up a
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:19:34 +0200 (SAST)
Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, November 28, 2007 1:06 pm, Nick Kew wrote:
Agreed. As it happens, I started on exactly that this morning,
before having to turn my attention away from hacking. With a bit
of luck I'll find the
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2007-11-12 19:10:44 -0500 (Mon, 12 Nov 2007) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
* http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Documentation status is
APACHE 2.2 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2007-11-28 21:21:55 -0500 (Wed, 28 Nov 2007) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
* http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Documentation status is
APACHE 2.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2006-08-22 16:41:03 -0400 (Tue, 22 Aug 2006) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
* http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS
Documentation status is maintained
28 matches
Mail list logo
