I noticed today that during runtime, the server does not favor exact
port matches over matches of a wildcard port in VirtualHost mapping.
This means the the IP-based VH you'll get for and
depends on the order of the config file.
Should we worst-case iterate twice to try to favor the specific mat
On Dec 22, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Part of the love is working on making dynamic addition/subtraction
>> of balancer members a reality. My hope is to have that done in
>> time for the beta.
>>
>
> Would that include support
The idea is that httpd, as a release, should not really
have any dependencies on APR, as a release. My thoughts are
to include m_s_c in 2.4 even if the current releases of APR
don't support it, simply because later versions will.
On Dec 24, 2010, at 8:40 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> Mod_se
On 27 Dec 2010, at 12:30, cronfy wrote:
>
>
> > Thanks, I tried it. Currently filter function looks like this:
> >
> > static apr_status_t procinfo_filter(ap_filter_t *f,
> >apr_bucket_brigade *b)
>
> Why are you doing this in a filter? You should be manipu
> Thanks, I tried it. Currently filter function looks like this:
> >
> > static apr_status_t procinfo_filter(ap_filter_t *f,
> >apr_bucket_brigade *b)
>
> Why are you doing this in a filter? You should be manipulating
> the response *body* in a filter, but the *
