On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2009, at 7:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Paul Querna wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Querna schrieb:
>
> all the files are now sourced from svn:
>
Thanks for your comments.
On Wednesday 23 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> --- modules/http/chunk_filter.c (Revision 818232)
> +++ modules/http/chunk_filter.c (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -49,11 +49,11 @@
> #define ASCII_CRLF "\015\012"
> #define ASCII_ZERO "\060"
> conn_rec *c = f->r->conn
On Saturday 03 October 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Shouldn't this depend on the existence of APR_HAVE_FCNTL_H?
>
Fixed in r821475
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 1:08 AM, wrote:
> Author: sf
> Date: Sun Oct 4 08:08:50 2009
> New Revision: 821477
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821477&view=rev
> Log:
> Make sure to not destroy bucket brigades that have been created by earlier
> filters. Otherwise the pool cleanups would be
Hi,
I would like to add mod_reqtimeout [1,2] to trunk. Is this OK?
Considering the positive comments it received, may I put it into
modules/filter or should it go into modules/experimental first?
Cheers,
Stefan
[1] http://www.sfritsch.de/mod_reqtimeout/mod_reqtimeout.c
[2] http://mail-archi
On 10/04/2009 09:37 AM, s...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: sf
> Date: Sun Oct 4 07:37:28 2009
> New Revision: 821471
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821471&view=rev
> Log:
> core, mod_deflate, mod_sed: Reduce memory usage by reusing bucket
> brigades in several places
>
> Modified:
>
On 10/04/2009 09:37 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> On Wednesday 23 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>
>> What is the point here? tmp is always NULL when passed to
>> apr_brigade_split_ex so apr_brigade_split_ex == apr_brigade_split
>
> You missed the tmp = b a
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Paul Querna wrote:
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821477&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Make sure to not destroy bucket brigades that have been created
> > by earlier filters. Otherwise the pool cleanups would be removed
> > causing potential memory leaks later on.
>
>
On 04.10.2009 10:23, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to add mod_reqtimeout [1,2] to trunk. Is this OK?
I think it would be a useful addition.
Regards,
Rainer
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> To be on the safe side we should do apr_brigade_cleanup(b) here.
>
Thanks. Fixed in r821481
On 10/04/2009 10:08 AM, s...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: sf
> Date: Sun Oct 4 08:08:50 2009
> New Revision: 821477
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821477&view=rev
> Log:
> Make sure to not destroy bucket brigades that have been created by earlier
> filters. Otherwise the pool cleanups
On 10/04/2009 10:23 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to add mod_reqtimeout [1,2] to trunk. Is this OK?
>
> Considering the positive comments it received, may I put it into
> modules/filter or should it go into modules/experimental first?
I guess experimental is a good startin
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> > --- httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core_filters.c (original)
> > +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core_filters.c Sun Oct 4 08:08:50
> > 2009
> >
> > @@ -392,19 +392,21 @@
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +if (new_bb != NULL) {
> > +bb = new
+1
Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 04.10.2009 10:23, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to add mod_reqtimeout [1,2] to trunk. Is this OK?
>>
>
> I think it would be a useful addition.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
On 10/04/2009 10:54 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Sunday 04 October 2009, Paul Querna wrote:
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821477&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Make sure to not destroy bucket brigades that have been created
>>> by earlier filters. Otherwise the pool cleanups would be removed
On 4 Oct 2009, at 09:23, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
I would like to add mod_reqtimeout [1,2] to trunk. Is this OK?
Considering the positive comments it received, may I put it into
modules/filter or should it go into modules/experimental first?
"experimental" has been somewhat in limbo of lat
On 4 Oct 2009, at 11:14, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
From rereading the old discussion back in 2005 I guess it is the
correct
thing to fix the comment in util_filter.h and not to destroy
brigades that
weren't created by us but just to clean them up.
So the ownership of the brigade remains with th
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> + *) mod_cache: Fix uri_meets_conditions() so that CacheEnable will
>>+ match by scheme, or by a wildcarded hostname. PR 40169
>>+ [Ryan Pendergast http://us.ibm.com>>,
>>Graham Leggett]
>>
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:29 PM, wrote:
> Author: fuankg
> Date: Sun Oct 4 00:29:02 2009
> New Revision: 821452
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821452&view=rev
> Log:
> fixed log type prefix.
>
you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you; in that case
the commit log
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> My gut instinct when I see something odd is that I'd like to know what
> that was for.
First off, I am not in a position to tell you why it was done like that,
that came from the original contributor, so I don't know why you were
asking me. Although having looked at it it i
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> +if (!(filter.port_str && !filter.port_str[0])) {
>> +/* NOTE: ap_port_of_scheme will return 0 if given NULL input */
>> +const unsigned fport = filter.port_str ? filter.port
>> +: apr_uri_port_of_scheme(filter.scheme);
On 10/04/2009 03:40 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>>> +if (!(filter.port_str && !filter.port_str[0])) {
>>> +/* NOTE: ap_port_of_scheme will return 0 if given NULL input
>>> */
>>> +const unsigned fport = filter.port_str ? filter.port
>>> +
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Where?
> The default handler in the core calls it explicitly and
> mod_cgi / mod_cgid / mod_asis do so via ap_scan_script_header_err
Sorry, you're right - ap_meets_conditions() does need to be called
explicitly.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptogra
I'm sorry. It was a stupid question :)
Of course I can define any value less than APR_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST.
--- On Sat, 10/3/09, Eldar Gaynetdinov wrote:
> From: Eldar Gaynetdinov
> Subject: Controlling hook calling order in Apache 2.x
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009,
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > My gut instinct when I see something odd is that I'd like to know what
> > that was for.
>
> First off, I am not in a position to tell you why it was done like that,
> that came from the original contributor, so I
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Eldar Gaynetdinov wrote:
> I'm sorry. It was a stupid question :)
>
> Of course I can define any value less than APR_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST.
>
Well, I started to say that but I find it hard to offer such advice without
asking what the heck you need to do that for ;)
M
On Oct 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 03.10.2009 14:54, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Sat Oct 3 12:54:35 2009
New Revision: 821307
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821307&view=rev
Log:
Provide new ap_update_child_status_from_conn() mostly
for use with mod_nol
Personally, I'd like to see this as part of the actual
code core, where we have several Timeouts, eg:
Timeout 30 5 10 2
which define timeout as now, timeout before 1st byte, timeout
between bytes timeout after etc...
We've always wanted better control over this ind timeouts and
putting
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
trunk to continue unabated?
On Oct 4, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Shouldn't we set fake_rec.per_dir_config and fake_rec.server to
NULL to play safe?
No because if you follow the code, a null fake_rec.per_dir_config is
handled correctly
as is a null server. The only one that wasn't was the one that
re
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Eldar Gaynetdinov
> mailto:hal9000e...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry. It was a stupid question :)
>
> Of course I can define any value less than APR_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST.
>
>
> Well, I started to say that but I find it hard to offer
> Especially if you know your hook will run in front of (or
> after) a particular
> hook entry, before and after arguments to the register
> function can help you
> with that sort of ordering.
I know about this possibility but I want write hooks which will called first
and last. I need to measure
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
> what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
> so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
> trunk to continue unabated?
-1, until we have votes for a beta/almost GA from trunk, -or
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
>> what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
>> so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
>> trunk to continue unabated?
>
> -1, until we have vote
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Personally, I'd like to see this as part of the actual
> code core, where we have several Timeouts, eg:
>
> Timeout 30 5 10 2
>
> which define timeout as now, timeout before 1st byte, timeout
> between bytes timeout after etc...
>
> We've
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see this as part of the actual
code core, where we have several Timeouts, eg:
Timeout 30 5 10 2
which define timeout as now, timeout before 1st byte, timeout
betwe
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
trunk to continue unabated?
-1, un
Jim Jagielski wrote:
And I would prefer several config directives instead of having to
remember which value in Timeout means what.
Well, I'm not a big fan of directive creep, but I see your point
and agree with it in a general sense.
Timeout Thistimeout=10 Thattimeout=2 Othertimeout=300 ?
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 04 October 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Personally, I'd like to see this as part of the actual
>>> code core, where we have several Timeouts, eg:
>>>
>>>Timeout 30 5 10 2
>>>
>>> which define timeo
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Nick Kew wrote:
> > FWIW, IMO it should go in modules/filters not experimental.
>
> +1. trunk is, by definition, experimental. But when we
> float off 2.3/4-branch, we should perhaps do some documentation
> of stability levels of different features and modules for user
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
>>> what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
>>> so we could focus on th
On 10/04/2009 06:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>>
>> On 03.10.2009 14:54, j...@apache.org wrote:
>>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/server/scoreboard.c (original)
>>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/server/scoreboard.c Sat Oct 3 12:54:35 2009
>>> @@ -490,6 +
Paul Querna wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>> Yep. My only fear, as you state, is without some clear consensus that
>> we want to get a 2.4 out "sometime soon", we will be stuck in that
>> never-ending loop of polishing the turd. ;)
>
> start cutting alpha rele
Hi,
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
> you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you; in that
> case the commit log should show
>
> Submitted by: xxx yyy http://zzz.com>>
> Reviewed by: (you)
I know, I know; but my friend always prefers to stay anonymous, and
wants to get me blamed for every
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
> Jeff Trawick schrieb:
>> you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you; in that
>> case the commit log should show
>>
>> Submitted by: xxx yyy http://zzz.com>>
>> Reviewed by: (you)
> I know, I know; but my friend always prefers to stay anonymous, and
>
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> If your anonymous friend does not have a CLA on file, you must revert; that is
> a condition you accepted, signing your own CLA.
huh? and this condition changes if I write his name and email address
into logs?
Gün.
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
> William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> > If your anonymous friend does not have a CLA on file, you must revert;
> that is
> > a condition you accepted, signing your own CLA.
> huh? and this condition changes if I write his name and email addre
Hi Guys,
I am using apache2, php5 and mod_fcgid on CentOS and I'm having a lot
of issues with 500 errors. I came across this blog post:
http://jay.vox.com/library/post/mod_fcgid-ignoring-fastcgi-config-settings.html
I was wondering if that is completely true? And if it is, why is it
that way? Jus
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Walter Heck wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I am using apache2, php5 and mod_fcgid on CentOS and I'm having a lot
> of issues with 500 errors. I came across this blog post:
>
> http://jay.vox.com/library/post/mod_fcgid-ignoring-fastcgi-config-settings.html
>
> I was wonderin
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you;
in that
case the commit log should show
Submitted by: xxx yyy http://zzz.com>>
Reviewed by: (you)
I know, I know; but my fr
Hi Jeff,
thanks for the quick response!
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 06:09, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> That's fixed in the mod_fcgid in Subversion. See the "Get It!" information
> at http://httpd.apache.org/mod_fcgid/ for how to check out from Subversion.
> That particular issue wasn't fixed in the 2.3.1
On Saturday 03 October 2009 12:44:02 pm Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > (just fixing subject)
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Ricardo Cantu wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 29 September 2009 4:20:49 pm you wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM, R
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Walter Heck wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> thanks for the quick response!
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 06:09, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > That's fixed in the mod_fcgid in Subversion. See the "Get It!"
> information
> > at http://httpd.apache.org/mod_fcgid/ for how to check out
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Jeff Trawick schrieb:
you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you; in that
case the commit log should show
Submitted by: xxx yyy http://zzz.
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> But since his comment, "my friend always prefers to stay anonymous" implied
> more
> than this single patch, it seems appropriate to call out the general concern.
you got this wrong - I meant that he prefers so at all other places too,
and not that he sends me tons
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
>> But since his comment, "my friend always prefers to stay anonymous" implied
>> more
>> than this single patch, it seems appropriate to call out the general concern.
> you got this wrong - I meant that he prefers so at all other places too,
>
Hi,
every now and then I get asked about why Apache doesnt start, and it
always turns out that folks try to load 2.0.x modules into 2.2.x, or
even 1.3.x modules into 2.0.x ...
therefore I posted already about 4 years this on my site:
http://www.gknw.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=88
so that I only need
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
58 matches
Mail list logo
