I am rewriting part of my module to use expat, a parse I have used in
years gone by. I know it, I sort of even like it and my XML is pretty
simple, except... I need to extract one text element. I know that
even though the text I need is in one continues line in the XML, expat
can and at times wi
kaby wrote:
For the primarily web application is no longer static.
Considering factors like cache, instruction prediction, I suppose randomized
request is need to avoid possible bias in benchmark.
So I wanna proposal a patch for this. Any suggestion?
ab.c isn't the place for such work, and you
For the primarily web application is no longer static.
Considering factors like cache, instruction prediction, I suppose randomized
request is need to avoid possible bias in benchmark.
So I wanna proposal a patch for this. Any suggestion?
--
This is kAbY, after University of Electronic Science a
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> On 11/29/2007 10:03 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:02:43PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
==
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES [utf-8] (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk
On 11/29/2007 10:03 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:02:43PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>> ==
>>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES [utf-8] (original)
>>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES [utf-8] Thu Nov 29 0
Joe Orton wrote:
> Taking this discussion out of bugzilla. As implemented currently the
> OCSP validation is working like this:
>
> 1) trusted store T initialized with root certs configured via SSLCA*
> 2) foreach cert in chain from (root...client certificate):
>a) verify cert is signed by t
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:02:43PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> > ==
> > --- httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES [utf-8] (original)
> > +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES [utf-8] Thu Nov 29 03:18:40 2007
> > @@ -2,6 +2,9 @@
> > Changes
Taking this discussion out of bugzilla. As implemented currently the
OCSP validation is working like this:
1) trusted store T initialized with root certs configured via SSLCA*
2) foreach cert in chain from (root...client certificate):
a) verify cert is signed by trusted cert (or, is transitiv
On 11/29/2007 12:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: jorton
> Date: Thu Nov 29 03:18:40 2007
> New Revision: 599385
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=599385&view=rev
> Log:
> mod_ssl: Add support for OCSP validation of client certificates:
>
> * modules/ssl/ssl_engine_config.c (mo
On Nov 29, 2007 8:36 AM, Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you should conceivably use that hack, you already know about it.
> Logging spits out \t and \n literally anyway so message looks horrible.
> Practically all users seeing this message just need to change User and
> get on with lif
On 11/29/07 8:23 AM, "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, er, um ... porting over to APR? That'd need to be raised on
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] I read your original post as ap_bndm, meaning httpd core.
I can just do ap_bndm. Just to keep it on this list...
Any particular place we are stickin
If you should conceivably use that hack, you already know about it.
Logging spits out \t and \n literally anyway so message looks horrible.
Practically all users seeing this message just need to change User and
get on with life.
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Index: os/unix/unixd.c
===
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:11:01 -0500
"Akins, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Needs to be against apr trunk and httpd trunk?
>
Oh, er, um ... porting over to APR? That'd need to be raised on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I read your original post as ap_bndm, meaning httpd core.
--
Nick Kew
Application
On 11/28/07 8:27 PM, "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 patch?
Sure. Why not.
Needs to be against apr trunk and httpd trunk?
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engin
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:31:52 +0200 (SAST)
"Graham Leggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you're happy with this minor reorganisation of your proposal,
> > then you have my +1 on it.
As you'll see, I've given it my +1 anyway now. Rationale: if my
patch can go in now, then it can equally well
On Thu, November 29, 2007 3:21 am, Nick Kew wrote:
> OK, fairy nuff I understand the shell args derivation, and that's
> fine by me. I'd prefer "-A /foo/bar.txt < 400", but I'm happy
> to accept your version.
Aaargh... something else I struggled with was to chose just how far to
take it. It woul
Hi,
I am getting segmentation fault when trying to start Inbuilt Apache 2.0.58 on
Solaris 10(sparc).
Please suggest.
Thanks
CAUTION - Disclaimer *
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely
for the use of the addressee(s). I
17 matches
Mail list logo
