In catching up with building 2.2.23 and getting somewhere with 2.4.3
(soon to be .24 and .4 from today's email notes), I'm left with one
quandary.
The 2.2 builds all used OpenSSL 0.9.8 and that's where I would leave
it, while 2.4 builds aught to use 1.0.1. That, and libxml2 and lua
are the packa
Don't know if will be applicable in the case of those modules or not, but
mod_python and mod_wsgi have similar conflicts over Python interpreter
initialisation and destruction and have had to do a little dance over who
gets precedence to ensure things don't crash.
In the next version of mod_wsgi t
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Don't know if will be applicable in the case of those modules or not, but
> mod_python and mod_wsgi have similar conflicts over Python interpreter
> initialisation and destruction and have had to do a little dance over who
> gets precedenc
On 05.02.2013 17:14, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
In the next version of mod_wsgi though I am dropping support for coexistence.
I want to flag that fact with a big error message and refuse to start up if
both loaded.
I'm not sure, how Python-users will react, but, as a Tcl-user, I'd hate to be
force
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:48:08 -0500
"Mikhail T." wrote:
> I'm not writing them -- they already exist. The two Tcl-modules (rivet and
> websh) both destroy the Tcl-interpreter at exit. The module, that gets to run
> the clean up last usually causes a crash:
Are you sure? My recollection of Tcl
The mod_python project is no longer developed and was moved into the ASF
attic. It is no longer recommended that it be used and the last official
release will not compile on current Apache versions. It only continues in
any form because some Linux distros are making their own patches so it will
com
On 05.02.2013 17:33, Nick Kew wrote:
Are you sure? My recollection of Tcl is of creating an interpreter
when I want to use it, and destroying it after use. Many could run
concurrently with a threaded MPM.
You are right. However, calling Tcl_Finalize -- which is what mod_rivet is doing
-- would
I've found the following data summary very useful in terms of
drill-down capability;
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.2/all
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all
while their breakdown/segmentation tabulations provide some
interesting data such as;
http://w3
On 05.02.2013 17:30, Mikhail T. wrote:
On 05.02.2013 17:20, Jeff Trawick wrote:
module *modp;
for (modp = ap_top_module; modp; modp = modp->next) {
foo(modp->name);
}
Cool! I thought of relying on the fact, that server_rec's module_config is a
an array of module-pointers, but the above seems
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 17:47:48 -0500
"Mikhail T." wrote:
> BTW, is modp->module_index a reliable indication of order in which
> modules are processed? In other words, of module1's index is smaller
> than that of module2, does that mean, module1's hooks will be invoked
> prior to module2's? Or must
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:48:08 -0500
"Mikhail T." wrote:
> On 05.02.2013 16:37, Nick Kew wrote:
> > But in general, querying another module, or knowing anything about
> > its cleanups, would be a violation of modularity. If it's
> > legitimate for a module to expose its inner workings, it can do s
On 05.02.2013 18:01, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
What if both attempt to register an identical apr_optional_fn for
tcl_destroy. That way you will never have both optional functions
called.
My plan was for each of the modules to skip the destruction, if the OTHER module
is registered to run clean
Is this being done in the Apache parent process or only in the child
processes?
If in the Apache parent process, you would still have to call Tcl_Finalize()
at some point wouldn't you to ensure that all memory is reclaimed?
One of the flaws early on in mod_python was that it didn't destroy the
Py
Is this being done in the Apache parent process or only in the child
processes?
If in the Apache parent process, you would still have to call Tcl_Finalize()
at some point wouldn't you to ensure that all memory is reclaimed?
One of the flaws early on in mod_python was that it didn't destroy the
Py
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:58:48 -0600
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> That tells you what order they were loaded; what order the
> register_hooks callbacks were processed.
But it doesn't tell you the order of process cleanups, as there
are many different hooks where a module could register them.
The
On 05.02.2013 18:25, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
If in the Apache parent process, you would still have to call Tcl_Finalize()
at some point wouldn't you to ensure that all memory is reclaimed?
I don't think so. If only because after calling Tcl_Finalize(), any other calls
into libtcl are "undefined"
On 6 February 2013 10:53, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 05.02.2013 18:25, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
> If in the Apache parent process, you would still have to call Tcl_Finalize()
> at some point wouldn't you to ensure that all memory is reclaimed?
>
> I don't think so. If only because after calling Tcl
On 05.02.2013 19:05, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
So the section of documentation you quote appears to support what I am saying
that Tcl_Finalize() still needs to be called. After the module is loaded and
initialised again, then Tcl_Init(), or whatever is used to create it again,
would be called to
On 2/5/2013 2:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
In catching up with building 2.2.23 and getting somewhere with 2.4.3
(soon to be .24 and .4 from today's email notes), I'm left with one
quandary.
The 2.2 builds all used OpenSSL 0.9.8 and that's where I would leave
it, while 2.4 builds aught to us
I won't be able to make the session but would add that because of a lack of mod
perl support with 2.4, we have not fully embraced it.
Might be others in a similar boat!
Regards,
KAM
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
>I've found the following data summary very useful in terms of
>drill-down capabi
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:43:13 -0800
Gregg Smith wrote:
> On 2/5/2013 2:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > In catching up with building 2.2.23 and getting somewhere with 2.4.3
> > (soon to be .24 and .4 from today's email notes), I'm left with one
> > quandary.
> >
> > The 2.2 builds all used Op
Hi all,
I am currently working on an Apache module that needs to maintain some
shared data that is used by all requests, on all workers. This data does
not need to be persistent, so I thought about using shared memory for
this task. Someone pointed me to mod_slotmem_shm (hi Rainer), but now I
On 5 Feb 2013, at 16:51, Reyad Attiyat wrote:
> Hello modules-dev,
> Was not sure if I should post in this mailing list or apr but I
> have trouble using apr-util and the mysql dbd driver. In my apache module i
> make several mysql connections using the apr dbd functions. I make one
> connection
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:15:46 -0500
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I think it's about time for 2.4.4... just a handful
> of proposed backports are still open. I propose we
> do a T&R the end of next week with a release the
> week after that. I'll be RM.
>
> Comments?
+1, it's been a while, thanks for RM'
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:18:11 -0800
Gregg Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since the Next Protocol Negotiation addition, mod_ssl cannot be
> compiled on Windows since the AP namespace is for imports.
>
> Are there any objections to this which allows the NPN hooks to be
> exported in
> Windows.
>
> If
On 05.02.2013 18:12, Micha Lenk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am currently working on an Apache module that needs to maintain some
> shared data that is used by all requests, on all workers. This data does
> not need to be persistent, so I thought about using shared memory for
> this task. Someone pointe
Hi,
This may look useless, but I can't figure out why in function
'substring_conf' (line 752 in server/util.c) we allocate len+2 bytes ?
This seems to have been like that forever.
IMO, len+1 should be enough.
Changing that would be a huge memory usage improvement :).
Does any one has an idea
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET <
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This may look useless, but I can't figure out why in function
> 'substring_conf' (line 752 in server/util.c) we allocate len+2 bytes ?
> This seems to have been like that forever.
>
> IMO,
Hello!
What is the official way for a module to check, whether another module (known by
name) is loaded and, if so, whether its hooks (cleanup in particular) will be
invoked before or after those of the inquirer?
I don't need to affect the order -- I just need to figure out, what it is...
Th
Le 05/02/2013 21:58, Jeff Trawick a écrit :
Changing that would be a huge memory usage improvement :).
needs more study
Not surprising, changing it has no impact on the result of 'top' on my
development machine.
Anyway, I'll propose a patch.
BTW, is there a way to easily dump a memory
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:04:13 -0500
"Mikhail T." wrote:
> Hello!
>
> What is the official way for a module to check, whether another module (known
> by
> name) is loaded and, if so, whether its hooks (cleanup in particular) will be
> invoked before or after those of the inquirer?
>
> I don't
On 05.02.2013 16:37, Nick Kew wrote:
But in general, querying another module, or knowing anything about
its cleanups, would be a violation of modularity. If it's legitimate
for a module to expose its inner workings, it can do so by exporting
an API.
Why the questions? Are you writing two modul
32 matches
Mail list logo
