Hello,
I have a module that does little more than take the information in the http
request and forward it to another web site. I can get information from the
query
string easily enough, but is there any way I can get information about the
session, and data stored in it?
Thanks,
Paul
In a Java servlet I may do something like this to get hold of the session on
the
web server:
public void doPost(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse res) throws
java.io.IOException
{
HttpSession session = request.getSession(true);
Cart cart = (Cart)session.getAttribute(cart);
...
and I
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 17:05, Paul Donaldson
pdonaldson_h...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I assume that if I were to make a request to a web site hosted on Apache then
the capability exists for one of the server side web pages to create a session
and store some piece of data in it. What I want to do in
Thank you. I will take a look at mod_session. Will my module be able to check
if
mod_session is enabled (sorry, I don't know the Apache terminology) and, if
it
is, talk to it and ask it for what it has stored in its session?
From: Ben Noordhuis
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 17:30, Paul Donaldson
pdonaldson_h...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Thank you. I will take a look at mod_session. Will my module be able to check
if
mod_session is enabled (sorry, I don't know the Apache terminology) and, if
it
is, talk to it and ask it for what it has stored
On 10/16/2010 4:59 AM, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sf
Date: Sat Oct 16 09:59:21 2010
New Revision: 1023227
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1023227view=rev
Log:
core: Log a warning if Limit or LimitExcept are used. They are
deprecated and may go away in 2.4.
Limit and LimitExcept
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 10/16/2010 4:59 AM, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sf
Date: Sat Oct 16 09:59:21 2010
New Revision: 1023227
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1023227view=rev
Log:
core: Log a warning if Limit or LimitExcept are used. They
On 10/19/2010 12:34 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
It was my understanding that we remove Limit/LimitExcept after the
first beta and I was hoping to provoke some comments from testers. Did
I misunderstand the last discussion about this?
If it will be gone, let's get rid of it now. Now that you
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 10/19/2010 12:34 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
It was my understanding that we remove Limit/LimitExcept after
the first beta and I was hoping to provoke some comments from
testers. Did I misunderstand the last discussion about this?
On 10/19/2010 12:47 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 10/19/2010 12:34 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
It was my understanding that we remove Limit/LimitExcept after
the first beta and I was hoping to provoke some comments from
testers. Did I
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 10/19/2010 12:47 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
If it will be gone, let's get rid of it now. Now that you have
the allowmethod module added, it seems we have sufficient
control
On Monday 18 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[x] Leave 2.0.x open to security/critical bug fixes only
Maybe one more release a few months after 2.4.0
On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
And there are a lot of string compares in the Apache codebase. Everytime
you see a strcmp, you (or is it only me?) have to stop and think well, is
this branch checking for equality or the opposite?
I think this is a case where either a
IMO, removing Limit and LimitExcept would require a bump to httpd 3.x,
since it would break almost all existing configs and introduce security
holes if the installer is not prepared to rewrite them.
Deprecating Limit and LimitExcept can be done in 2.4.x, which means
keeping their functionality
On 2010-10-19 at 15:21, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
And there are a lot of string compares in the Apache codebase. Everytime
you see a strcmp, you (or is it only me?) have to stop and think well, is
this branch checking for
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
IMO, removing Limit and LimitExcept would require a bump to httpd
3.x, since it would break almost all existing configs and
introduce security holes if the installer is not prepared to
rewrite them.
If the user is not prepared to change the
On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
IMO, removing Limit and LimitExcept would require a bump to httpd
3.x, since it would break almost all existing configs and
introduce security holes if the installer is not prepared to
On 10/19/2010 3:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Of course they will still use it. If you want to mandate config
changes, then release it as httpd 3.x. Keeling over a website when
they perform a *minor* version upgrade is foolish. Version numbers
are cheap.
The auth config / requires
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
IMO, removing Limit and LimitExcept would require a bump to
httpd 3.x, since it would break almost all existing configs and
introduce
On 10/19/2010 3:32 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Then fix the insane behavior.
I don't think that's an option. Changing the behaviour of Limit will
surely break some users' auth configs in subtle ways, which is much
worse than a clean break.
On Martes, 19 de Octubre de 2010 01:39:05 Igor Galić escribió:
- Javier Llorente jav...@opensuse.org wrote:
Hello list-mates,
I think that the current icons used in directory listing look a bit
old.
Perhaps it's time to make a call for help creating a new iconset?
I am not an
On 19.10.2010 22:30, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 10/19/2010 3:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Of course they will still use it. If you want to mandate config
changes, then release it as httpd 3.x. Keeling over a website when
they perform a *minor* version upgrade is foolish. Version numbers
On 18.10.2010 18:39, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:54:27AM -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
With a release on the way with a host of good bits, almost 2 years after its
previous release, it seems time that the group might consider the following
options...
[ ] Leave 2.0.x
Hi all,
Like mod_cache, many of the directives in mod_proxy should ideally be
per-directory scoped, when they are currently scoped per-server.
The attached patch makes the ProxyErrorOverride directive per-
directory scoped. Is it worth doing this for other proxy directives
where sensible?
- Javier Llorente jav...@opensuse.org wrote:
On Martes, 19 de Octubre de 2010 01:39:05 Igor Galić escribió:
- Javier Llorente jav...@opensuse.org wrote:
Hello list-mates,
I think that the current icons used in directory listing look a
bit
old.
Perhaps it's time to
On Oct 19, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Javier Llorente wrote:
On Martes, 19 de Octubre de 2010 01:39:05 Igor Galić escribió:
- Javier Llorente jav...@opensuse.org wrote:
Hello list-mates,
I think that the current icons used in directory listing look a bit
old.
Perhaps it's time to make a call for
FYI, while you're doing this it might be interesting to make it explicitly
controllable by the origin:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5861
Cheers,
On 12/10/2010, at 9:43 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
RFC2616 allows us to serve stale content during outages:
/* RFC2616 13.8
27 matches
Mail list logo
