On Mon, Jun 18, 2008 at 05:27:17PM +0200, I wrote:
So, to support non-SNI clients as far as possible, let me propose the
attached (additional) patch. It corrects the shortcomings of my earlier
attempt (no longer changing dc-nVerify{Client,Depth} in-place), and
includes the changes to support
Coincidentally, I was about to finish the second part of my analysis
when I saw the SNI in which release? message earlier today.
So here it is, part two... Joe, your help in getting SNI into 2.2.10
(possibly) would be very much appreciated. Thanks if you find time for
looking into this.
We're
Joe Orton wrote:
A lot of the mod_ssl code will need to be
very carefully reviewed since some core assumptions are being broken by
supporting SNI. I would go through each of the config directive which
supports vhost context in turn.
So, as promised, I've looked further into it, based on
Joe Orton wrote:
Access control is certainly the most important issue, but e.g. if
SSLCertificateChainFile is not supported properly for the named vhost
that's also a bug. Many configs depend on supplying the intermediate
certs.
True. I'm using such a configuration on my test host since
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNI in 2.2.9? (Re: 2.2.9 status)
61495 by: Kaspar Brand
There are just a handful of useful patches in STATUS lacking
a single vote for inclusion in 2.2.9...
While not completely true for the SNI backport proposal (requires more
than a single additional vote
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 04:42:07PM +0200, Kaspar Brand wrote:
So, is there still hope for SNI being added in 2.2.9...? Let me know if
there's anything else I can do to increase the chances of getting this
proposal accepted.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=662815view=rev
Changing the dirconf
Den Wednesday 04 June 2008 14:06:22 skrev Ian G:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNI in 2.2.9? (Re: 2.2.9 status)
61495 by: Kaspar Brand
FYI. SNI is in Mandriva Linux 2008.1.
--
Regards // Oden Eriksson
Oden Eriksson wrote:
Den Wednesday 04 June 2008 14:06:22 skrev Ian G:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNI in 2.2.9? (Re: 2.2.9 status)
61495 by: Kaspar Brand
FYI. SNI is in Mandriva Linux 2008.1.
Then you should pull it out ASAP, as noted by others the patch currently
in trunk is broken
Joe Orton wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=662815view=rev
Changing the dirconf structure fields in-place seems ugly and may even
be thread-unsafe (not sure).
Thanks for pointing this out, I wasn't aware of the danger of doing so.
The same effect can be achieved with the attached,
There are just a handful of useful patches in STATUS lacking
a single vote for inclusion in 2.2.9... Anticipating an
apr/apu release within a day or so, I'd like to get 2.2.9
out pretty much right after that, and with as much goodness
as possible :)
Please review STATUS and prepare for tarball
On 6/2/08 2:02 PM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review STATUS and prepare for tarball testing in a coupla
days!
FWIW, if my vote counts:
*htpasswd: Fix salt generation weakness. PR 31440 +1
* mod_unique_id: Convert request time to seconds before before storing it in
+1
--
Hi,
for 2.2.9, it would be nice to fix the epoll issue PR 42829, IMHO. The
patch in the bug report works, even if it may not be the perfect
solution.
Cheers,
Stefan
On May 29, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
for 2.2.9, it would be nice to fix the epoll issue PR 42829, IMHO. The
patch in the bug report works, even if it may not be the perfect
solution.
From what I can see, there is no real patch available or fully
tested enough to warrant
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Jim Jagielski wrote:
for 2.2.9, it would be nice to fix the epoll issue PR 42829,
IMHO. The patch in the bug report works, even if it may not be
the perfect solution.
From what I can see, there is no real patch available or fully
tested enough to warrant anything
On May 29, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Jim Jagielski wrote:
for 2.2.9, it would be nice to fix the epoll issue PR 42829,
IMHO. The patch in the bug report works, even if it may not be
the perfect solution.
From what I can see, there is no real patch
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Jim Jagielski wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21137 has
been in Debian testing and unstable for about 6 months without
problems. It is not an elegant solution but it works. Considering
that is is not clear how an elegant solution would
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/23/2008 05:59 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Right now, we are waiting on an APR release before we can
release 2.2.9... Does matter if we go with APR 1.3.0 or 1.2.x,
we need a release (showstopper related to 1.2)
I have noted problem in
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Right now, we are waiting on an APR release before we can
release 2.2.9... Does matter if we go with APR 1.3.0 or 1.2.x,
we need a release (showstopper related to 1.2)
I have noted problem in httpd-2.2.8 with mpm worker when using
mod_proxy_ajp ping/pong it seems fixed
On 05/23/2008 05:59 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Right now, we are waiting on an APR release before we can
release 2.2.9... Does matter if we go with APR 1.3.0 or 1.2.x,
we need a release (showstopper related to 1.2)
I have noted problem in httpd-2.2.8 with mpm
Right now, we are waiting on an APR release before we can
release 2.2.9... Does matter if we go with APR 1.3.0 or 1.2.x,
we need a release (showstopper related to 1.2)
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Right now, we are waiting on an APR release before we can
release 2.2.9... Does matter if we go with APR 1.3.0 or 1.2.x,
we need a release (showstopper related to 1.2)
APR_EDONTCARE, although the community was very vocal in preferring
to put APR 1.3.0 to bed already, once
On May 22, 2008, at 11:50 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Right now, we are waiting on an APR release before we can
release 2.2.9... Does matter if we go with APR 1.3.0 or 1.2.x,
we need a release (showstopper related to 1.2)
APR_EDONTCARE, although the community was
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Go ahead and migrate them.
Happy to.
I looked at the patch last week and found
no clue as to how to evaluate it without a working win32 install.
Understandable. I thought for a while about going the utf-8 route, but
since this code would never, never be
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Go ahead and migrate them.
Happy to.
I looked at the patch last week and found
no clue as to how to evaluate it without a working win32 install.
Understandable. I thought for a while about going the utf-8 route, but
since this code would never, never be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It works on XP and Vista, what more do you need?
Someone to independently confirm - thanks Gav :)
Was a solution ever arrived at for proper handling of %3B (escaped ';')
in URLs passed to Tomcat via mod_proxy_ajp?
This and 8K AJP packet handling are sorely missing in mod_proxy_ajp.
--
Jess Holle
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It works on XP and Vista, what more do you need?
Someone to independently confirm - thanks Gav :)
I tested your ApacheMonitor.exe.r652599 and ApacheMonitorU.exe.r652599 from
http://people.apache.org/~wrowe on Win2k, XP, Vista.
Also
27 matches
Mail list logo
