Hi Gregg,
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
May I request this be added to
http://people.apache.org/~sf/mod_reqtimeout.2.2-windows-build.patch
Thanks. Commited to trunk as r917153 and added to the proposal in
2.2.x/STATUS (people.apache.org seems to be down ATM).
Since I have your
Yes, the log_transaction hook is what I expect, thanks! :-)
But I've still a problem: if in my hook function I put a sleep function,
which sleep for 10 seconds for example, the first page is served
correctly (few ms) but for the next, it will wait for these 10s (not
really 10s but the rest time),
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Samuel ROZE wrote:
> Yes, the log_transaction hook is what I expect, thanks! :-)
>
> But I've still a problem: if in my hook function I put a sleep function,
> which sleep for 10 seconds for example, the first page is served
> correctly (few ms) but for the next, i
On 27.02.2010 19:54, minf...@apache.org wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Sat Feb 27 18:54:40 2010
New Revision: 917013
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=917013&view=rev
Log:
mod_cache: Introduce the thundering herd lock, a mechanism to keep
the flood of requests at bay that strike a backend webs
A dedicated process or thread just for my module, or still linked to
the Apache request? The better thing is to create a thread unlinked
with the Apache request, it is possible? I'm like a Newbie with Apache
module development, is there somewhere an example or a sample of code?
Like I said, the be
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:27 +0100, "Samuel ROZE"
wrote:
> Yes, the log_transaction hook is what I expect, thanks! :-)
>
> But I've still a problem: if in my hook function I put a sleep
> function, which sleep for 10 seconds for example, the first page is
> served correctly (few ms) but for the next,
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, minf...@apache.org wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Sat Feb 27 19:35:05 2010
New Revision: 917023
@@ -149,9 +149,12 @@
Trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=910705&view=rev
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=910735&view=rev
http://sv
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Let's start a three day clock to the tag, and I'll tag Sunday about noon CST.
There is still one proposal missing just one vote, and two proposals
cannot be reviewed because people.apache.org is down (at least I cannot
reach it). Maybe delay the
Stefan: can you mail me your mod_reqtimeout 2.2.x backport patch? Since
p.a.o is still offline; i can not download your patch. I tested a
backport I made this morning and it looks fine. If it is identical to
yours, I'll vote immediately for it.
On 28.02.2010 15:04, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Th
On Sunday 28 February 2010, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Stefan: can you mail me your mod_reqtimeout 2.2.x backport patch?
> Since p.a.o is still offline; i can not download your patch. I
> tested a backport I made this morning and it looks fine. If it is
> identical to yours, I'll vote immediately for
The trick with any such thing is in protecting yourself from attack.
Consider...you could fork, let the parent continue on its business, disown
the child, and do your work there. Easy in terms of lines of code, but
expensive (forks) and potentially hazardous.
You could create a thread pool to do t
On 28 Feb 2010, at 3:59 PM, s...@apache.org wrote:
+sf: r910705 does not work with 2.2.x, pease create an adjusted
patch:
+htcacheclean.c:935: undefined reference to
`usage_repeated_arg'
I have attached the updated patch, as people.apache.org is still down.
Will update STATUS a
On 27 Feb 2010, at 11:07 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
+Available in httpd 2.3 and later, if using OpenSSL
1.0.0 Beta 5 or later
needs an update for 2.2., and I never know whether it's okay to say
"n+1 or later" in case n+1 doesn't end up being released ("versions
after n")
Thanks for this, fixed
On Sunday 28 February 2010, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > +sf: r910705 does not work with 2.2.x, pease create an
> > adjusted patch:
> > +htcacheclean.c:935: undefined reference to
> > `usage_repeated_arg'
>
> I have attached the updated patch, as people.apache.org is still
> down.
>
On 2/25/2010 3:36 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> I'd like to move ahead and catch up to OpenSSL 0.9.8m which was released
> today,
> and that requires a 2.2 release.
>
> Let's start a three day clock to the tag, and I'll tag Sunday about noon CST.
> That gives folks friday, and weekend warriors
On 2/25/2010 3:36 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> I'd like to move ahead and catch up to OpenSSL 0.9.8m which was released
> today,
> and that requires a 2.2 release.
>
> Let's start a three day clock to the tag, and I'll tag Sunday about noon CST.
> That gives folks friday, and weekend warriors
On 2/28/2010 8:04 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> There is still one proposal missing just one vote, and two proposals
> cannot be reviewed because people.apache.org is down (at least I cannot
> reach it). Maybe delay the tag a bit, like 2-3 days?
Done; pushed this one day. This is a security fix rel
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:50:52 +0100
Samuel ROZE wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm writing an Apache2 module which takes some time to be executed
> (500ms avg) because it is communicating with another server for each
> request. What is it doing haven't any consequence on the served page
> or file, so it can
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On 28 Feb 2010, at 8:03 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
I am +1 with this patch. Feel free to add my vote when you update
STATUS.
Done in r917336, thanks for looking it over.
Regards,
Graham
--
20 matches
Mail list logo
