Re: Expect: non-100 messages

> See > (I'd propose to continue the conversation over there). Done. Thanks for initiating the discussion. > > The HTTP spec does specify that the hop-to-hop decision MUST be made > > at a protocol level > > (

Re: svn commit: r644253 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: docs/manual/mod/core.xml include/ap_mmn.h include/http_core.h server/core.c server/request.c

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:18:26 +0200 Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +ap_parse_node_t *condition; /* Conditionally merge > > sections */ } core_dir_config; > > Does this work correctly without adjusting merge_core_dir_configs? Good point - I'll take a look. For sure there's m

Re: svn commit: r644525 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: ./ include/ modules/aaa/ modules/examples/ modules/ssl/ server/

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 09:51:09PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Author: chrisd > Date: Thu Apr 3 14:51:07 2008 > New Revision: 644525 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=644525&view=rev For sure, this requires a mmn bump :) -- =

Re: Expect: non-100 messages

Charles Fry wrote: Well, I guess that partly depends on how deployed proxies deal with unrecognized Expect headers. Do any of you have any practical knowledge of how current proxies deal with new Expect headers? There does at least seem to be a precedent with WebDAV sending 102 status codes (thou

Re: Expect: non-100 messages

Well, I guess that partly depends on how deployed proxies deal with unrecognized Expect headers. Do any of you have any practical knowledge of how current proxies deal with new Expect headers? There does at least seem to be a precedent with WebDAV sending 102 status codes (though I know nothing fir

Re: svn commit: r644253 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: docs/manual/mod/core.xml include/ap_mmn.h include/http_core.h server/core.c server/request.c

On 04/03/2008 12:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: niq Date: Thu Apr 3 03:23:12 2008 New Revision: 644253 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=644253&view=rev Log: HTTPD Core: Implement sections for conditional (runtime) configuration. N.B. This is a first pass, and has a way to go!

Re: Expect: non-100 messages

Charles Fry wrote: Greetings Apache Developers, We have implemented an Apache module which needs to process incoming Expect headers for non-100-expectations. The version of server/protocol.c currently in the trunk has a hard-coded Expect header check that handles "Expect: 100-continue", but fail

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote: It wouldn't surprise me, which is why we need to get a 2.3-beta out there for testing. That would be good as well... that way we can determine how solid the existing impl is, so when the new stuff is added we know the "old" stuff is still goo

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: I'd -1 a 2.4.0 release today, because nobody has even bothered to make a candidate for 2.3-dev. Auth logic changes break most if not all third party auth modules (broke an auth feature in mod_ftp). Not talking about commercial modules but every third party auth

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

Nick Kew wrote: But before that, we need a vision of where we're going, and how to get there without breaking what we've got. * server_conf goes away. Modules have zero or more "conf" sections, essentially today's misnamed dir_conf, which are initialized and merged as they are today.

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

>>> On 4/3/2008 at 8:23 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- >> Von: Jim Jagielski >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 16:07 >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Betreff: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:13:31 -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The hope. Those admins who refuse to let their junior admins use that > directive should have a level of control over their outward facing > heavily-loaded machines :) The logic is approximately cloned from ,

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Akins, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Very rough draft. But this is not necessarily slow... ;) Right. Even then, the user/admin may be willing to burn CPU cycles anyway to get a simpler config. Plus, if they were to use mod_rew

Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?]

Akins, Brian wrote: On 4/3/08 11:38 AM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But that *doesn't* mean I don't want it... simply not to replace directory, file, location or method. Keep in mind you wouldn't have your ErrorLog opened at startup time, as this is too variant Unless I

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

Nick Kew wrote: is of course a crusty old relative. Limit is unrelated, it's fundamentally borked (directive must know it is participating in a limit-ed section, cannot overly multiple limit-ed sections because that directive has never created a conf section, and there is no exception thrown

Re: svn commit: r644357 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/conf/extra/httpd-dav.conf.in

Joshua Slive wrote: I'll admit I never tested that, but "file" is supposed to be the default for AuthDigestProvider. Why didn't it work before? Possibly another of the example configs has overriden the AuthDigestProvider selection? Or perhaps this default works for AuthBasicProvider but not D

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:06:50AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along > > and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too > > much ripping with the inevita

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Akins, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Very rough draft. But this is not necessarily slow... ;) Right. Even then, the user/admin may be willing to burn CPU cycles anyway to get a simpler config. Plus, if they were to use mod_rewrite, they've already blown

Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?]

On 4/3/08 11:38 AM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But that *doesn't* mean I don't want it... simply not to replace directory, > file, location or method. Keep in mind you wouldn't have your ErrorLog > opened at startup time, as this is too variant Unless I'm mistaken, there

Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?]

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:22:00 -0400 "Akins, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > DocumentRoot /www/cnn > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > etc That basically comes out of what I committed this morning. Well, up to a point: it only applies to the per-dir config. > Maybe no need fo

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

On 4/3/08 11:38 AM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> ... >> > > Slow Not if the parsing is done at config time and HTTP_Method is handle by a provider. Some pseudo code: At config time, the parser would do something like: parse_provider *prov; void

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:25:56 -0400 "Akins, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/3/08 10:47 AM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I'll commit the > > > ... > May work already (not tested) if Rewrite is active (so method is available as an env var). Certainly on th

Expect: non-100 messages

Greetings Apache Developers, We have implemented an Apache module which needs to process incoming Expect headers for non-100-expectations. The version of server/protocol.c currently in the trunk has a hard-coded Expect header check that handles "Expect: 100-continue", but fails on any other expect

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

Akins, Brian wrote: On 4/3/08 10:47 AM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'll commit the ... Slow

Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?]

Akins, Brian wrote: On 4/2/08 5:56 PM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm pondering this... if we drop "per-server" ... yet retain the ability for authors to factor their config info into related config sections... Yes... Bcs what IO am imagining is something like what I've

Re: svn commit: r644357 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/conf/extra/httpd-dav.conf.in

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:29 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Author: wrowe > Date: Thu Apr 3 08:28:59 2008 > New Revision: 644357 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=644357&view=rev > Log: > Correct broken configuration in 2.2 - this example didn't run out of the box > +AuthDige

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

On 4/3/08 10:47 AM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll commit the ... ;) -- Brian Akins Chief Operations Engineer Turner Digital Media Technologies

Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?]

On 4/2/08 6:07 PM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > we can finish these out, opening logs with > full privileges. Other merges will happen at run time (or be optimized > when we can accomplish this) per-request. We already "fake" per-dir logs with the env stuff in mod_log_conf

Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?]

On 4/2/08 5:56 PM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm pondering this... if we drop "per-server" ... yet retain the ability > for authors to factor their config info into related config sections... Yes... Bcs what IO am imagining is something like what I've posted before:

Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?]

On 4/2/08 5:50 PM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ixnay on the run-time intensive, slow down the server sorts of changes. > httpd continues to become slower as it becomes more powerful. I know you > are the first one to raise your hand and point out when we are doing too > mu

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

Plüm wrote: 2. My feeling regarding the usage of 2.2 is that since about 6 month we are getting track as commercial 3rd parties now supply modules for httpd 2.2. This means that will have to maintain one more stable branch for quite some time and to be honest currently we effectively

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:06:50AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along > and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too > much ripping with the inevitable delays associated with that :) Is there really enough news in trunk to warran

Re: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Jim Jagielski > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 16:07 > An: dev@httpd.apache.org > Betreff: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was > Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?]) > > Another good topic of discussion: > > Time for a

2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

>>> On 4/3/2008 at 8:06 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another good topic of discussion: > > Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along > and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too > much ripping with the inevitable d

Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?]

Jorge Schrauwen wrote: ... if we had a config finalize, modules who were prepared to declare their config (e.g. mod_vhost declaring the per-host directory merges "completed") then as-root, we can finish these out, opening logs with full privileges. Other merges will happen at run time (or be

2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])

Another good topic of discussion: Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too much ripping with the inevitable delays associated with that :)

Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?]

> ... if we had a config finalize, modules who were prepared to declare > their config (e.g. mod_vhost declaring the per-host directory merges > "completed") then as-root, we can finish these out, opening logs with > full privileges. Other merges will happen at run time (or be optimized > whe