On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:36:28 +0200
Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PARSE_STRING(r,
> > current->left->token.value);
> > +current->left->value
> > = !!*current->left->token.value;
>
> Why do we use !! here? Isn't this the same as !! not being there?
I don't un
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:36:28 +0200
Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PARSE_STRING(r,
current->left->token.value);
+current->left->value
= !!*current->left->token.value;
Why do we use !! here? Isn't this the same a
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Jim Jagielski
> Gesendet: Montag, 31. März 2008 16:10
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r642558 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk:
> CHANGES NWGNUmakefile build/nw_export.inc include/ap_expr.h
> include/ap_mmn.h libhttpd.dsp server/Makefile
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 3/26/08 9:06 AM, "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There seems to be a demand for dynamic per-request configuration,
as evidenced by the number of users hacking it with mod_rewrite,
and the other very limited tools available. Modern mod_rewrite
usage commonly looks l
Nick Kew wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:17:01 -0400
"Akins, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/27/08 3:58 AM, "Torsten Foertsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So I was going to reimplement it based on mod_wombat some
time this year.
The nice thing about lua, in addition to being lightweigh
Paul Querna wrote:
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 3/26/08 9:06 AM, "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There seems to be a demand for dynamic per-request configuration,
as evidenced by the number of users hacking it with mod_rewrite,
and the other very limited tools available. Modern mod_rewrite
u
On 3/31/08 1:46 PM, "Issac Goldstand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if possible (to
> remove completely unnecessary bloating)
Lua != perl
Lua < perl (size wise by an order of magnitude)
> And in
> addition, the learning curve to learn to use these powerful directives
> is still optional
I disa
On 3/31/08 1:39 PM, "Paul Querna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should just do it right, and stop hacking around the central problem.
>
> Expose the structures.
>
> Embed Lua.
+1, but you already knew that...
Also, mod_wombat, as such, goes away if Lua is embedded. We may have a
module tha
Issac Goldstand wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 3/26/08 9:06 AM, "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There seems to be a demand for dynamic per-request configuration,
as evidenced by the number of users hacking it with mod_rewrite,
and the other very limited tools availabl
Paul Querna wrote:
Issac Goldstand wrote:
I think the right approach is to first change the internal configuration
API.
Make it a real API, not a series of callbacks with filepointers and
strings in them.
Once we have that, we can write language bindings for all of them, and
all langua
On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
Just read the mod_rewrite docs:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/rewrite/rewrite_tech.html#InternalAPI
They are already exposing internals to "users'.
"Users" want customization.
We should just do it right, and stop hacking around the central
On 03/31/2008 02:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: niq
Date: Mon Mar 31 05:16:58 2008
New Revision: 642971
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=642971&view=rev
Log:
Flesh out ap_expr with:
* Re-usable parse trees
* Canonical string parser function (candidate)
Modified:
httpd/http
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:24:50 +0200
Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't like exposing internals to a public API. If the API user
> always calls it with NULL we should hide this from the API users by
> using a thin wrapper.
Indeed, I think clone needs to be hidden altogether, and pl
* Nick Kew wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:24:50 +0200
>
> Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > #define CREATE_NODE(pool,name) do { \
> > > -(name) = apr_palloc(pool, sizeof(*(name))); \
> > > -(name)->parent = (name)->left = (name)->right = NULL;
Nick Kew wrote:
Why do we use !! here? Isn't this the same as !! not being there?
!! is int -> bool (1 or 0 value). Why - that's a good question.
Issac Goldstand wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 3/26/08 9:06 AM, "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There seems to be a demand for dynamic per-request configuration,
as evidenced by the number of users hacking it with mod_rewrite,
and the other very limited tools availabl
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Issac Goldstand wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 3/26/08 9:06 AM, "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There seems to be a demand for dynamic per-request configuration,
as evidenced by the number of users hacking it with mod_rewrite,
and the othe
Paul Querna wrote:
Then the existing configuration file, a new lua system, or anything
else, could be written in terms of that, rather than the current system
where each language reinvents the modules it wants to control.
I sympathize, but this doesn't reflect the addition of blocks...
thos
Paul Querna wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Issac Goldstand wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 3/26/08 9:06 AM, "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There seems to be a demand for dynamic per-request configuration,
as evidenced by the number of users hacking it with mod_r
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, after last year's experience of being the only server
> person around who wasn't working on a Joost release,
*hides*
> I decided to delay
> my arrival until Tuesday rather than attend the hackathon.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I sympathize, but this doesn't reflect the addition of blocks...
> those blocks can be trivially implemented as a loadable module ;-)
As I grok it, the point would be throw out our ridiculous config
syntax entire
21 matches
Mail list logo
