2014-06-12 3:26 GMT+09:00 Mike Rumph :
> On 6/11/2014 9:39 AM, taka...@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/include/ap_mpm.h (original)
>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/include/ap_mpm.h Wed Jun 11 16:39:34 2014
>> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ AP_DECLARE(apr_status_t) ap_mpm_query(in
>> /** @} */
>> t
Is it possible to embed Apache into other applications on Windows and
Linux? I.e. Is it possible to run an Apache HTTP(S) server inside a
process in parallel with other (non-Apache) tasks running on septate
threads? I ask because most of Apache's HTTP service logic _appears_ to be
implemented i
On 6/11/2014 9:39 AM, taka...@apache.org wrote:
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/include/ap_mpm.h (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/include/ap_mpm.h Wed Jun 11 16:39:34 2014
@@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ AP_DECLARE(apr_status_t) ap_mpm_query(in
/** @} */
typedef void (ap_mpm_callback_fn_t)(void *baton);
+typed
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Plack requires SCRIPT_NAME to be "" instead of "/" (
> https://github.com/plack/Plack/issues/308).
> Is there a way to do this with Apache 2.4.7?
>
> My current config is
> ProxyPass / fcgi://localhost:9090/
>
> - Y
>
I don't think it is possi
auto works too :)
On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> "auto"? Then e.g. proxy_ws can check for auto && Upgrade header.
>
> I'm fine with "auto" too ( since I definitively like C++11 :p ).
>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> "auto"? Then e.g. proxy_ws can check for auto && Upgrade header.
I'm fine with "auto" too ( since I definitively like C++11 :p ).
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> I prefer 'passthru' then.
"auto"? Then e.g. proxy_ws can check for auto && Upgrade header.
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
Oh yes, good point!
I prefer 'passthru' then.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The reason I didn't use proxy is that we use 'proxy' internally
> and we now expose that via allowing its use as a handler...
>
> On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun
The reason I didn't use proxy is that we use 'proxy' internally
and we now expose that via allowing its use as a handler...
On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> So how about 'passthru' as the special scheme? Or
>> maybe just
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> So how about 'passthru' as the special scheme? Or
> maybe just 'pass', 'scheme' or even 'glob' ??
Simply 'proxy'? Which would not be filenamed to "proxy:proxy:" but to
"proxy:${ap_http_scheme(r)}:"?
Otherwise, +1 for 'passthru'.
I have an idea which could be pretty simple to
implement and not add yet-another ProxyPass parameter.
A special scheme.
Ideally, something like
ProxyPass / *://foo.example.com/
would be nice, with the special scheme '*' saying
"use the scheme of the request", but apr_uri_parse
barfs on
11 matches
Mail list logo
