The problem is: SSL is *NOT* usable for virtual hosting. You need an
separate socket for each SSL vhost, so you'll probably prefere
several independent httpd's - maybe then stripped down w/o any vhost support.
You're right - SSL is not usable for name-based vhosts. However it
should be fine
Nick Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:03
GMT-5
The problem is: SSL is *NOT* usable for virtual hosting. You need an
separate socket for each SSL vhost, so you'll probably prefere
several independent httpd's - maybe then stripped down w/o any vhost
support.
You're right - SSL is not
At 07:24 AM 2/10/2005, Leif W wrote:
Hi. I hang out mostly on the users list, but have played with basic
HTTPS configuration (using SSL or TLS). As I understand, HTTPS works
fine with any VirtualHost, so long as it is based on a unique ip:port
combination. That is the current alternative to
* Nick Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but IMHO (as someone who's an appalling
C developer), we really really need perchild or something like it to
work. Having tried MetuxMPM (and got annoyed with its inability to deal
with SSL), I believe some serious
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but IMHO (as someone who's an appalling
C developer), we really really need perchild or something like it to
work. Having tried MetuxMPM (and got annoyed with its inability to deal
with SSL), I believe some serious work needs to be done here.
Unfortunately, I
* Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I only see patches for 2.0.48 and .49. Do you have something against
Subversion Trunk? Have you tried it against 2.1 yet?
not yet.
we all have very plenty time. the maillist is full of people, but 99.9%
only lurking :(
snip
Then be active on
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
We've done a complete redesign of an multiplexer-based MPM, but it seems
that no one's really interested in it here. We've supplied patches against
various httpd2 releases.
http://nibiru.borg.metux.de:7000/wiki.mpm/
I only see patches for 2.0.48 and .49. Do you have
* Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have had an idea for replacing the perchild MPM boggling around inside
my head for awhile now. This is an idea for a different architecture to
allowing different UIDs to serve httpd requests. I am looking for all
feedback with my proposed
protocol.
Bye,
Ivan
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: RFC for a Perchild-like-MPM
From: Gustavo A. Baratto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26-11-2004 3:18
I think the only part missing right now is the ability to compile
Apache to function as a FastCGI client, and accept
I think the only part missing right now is the ability to compile
Apache to function as a FastCGI client, and accept requests over
FastCGI instead of HTTP. That can be a full version of Apache,
or a slimmed-down version (e.g. with no input/output filters).
It is a great idea use FastCGI's
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:42:20 +, Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leif W wrote:
which was last released as version 2.4.2 on
2003-11-24. Does it still work with Apache httpd 2.0.x?
Works fine with httpd 2.0.x in my tests (mod_fastcgi 2.4.2, I
didn't try the more recent
Max Bowsher wrote:
Quoting Ivan Ristic ivanr webkreator com (2004-11-17 17:31:39 GMT):
I've used FastCGI to give individual
users their own PHP engines (since PHP now comes with FastCGI protocol
support built-in).
This sounds useful - would you be willing to share some config file
Andrew Stribblehill, Thursday, November 18, 2004 07:53
Quoting Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-11-17 17:31:39 GMT):
Paul Querna wrote:
Are you familiar with FastCGI? My first impression is that most of
what you envision is possible today with FastCGI, or would be
possible
Leif W wrote:
Andrew Stribblehill, Thursday, November 18, 2004 07:53
Quoting Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-11-17 17:31:39 GMT):
Paul Querna wrote:
Are you familiar with FastCGI? My first impression is that most of
what you envision is possible today with FastCGI, or would be
Ivan Ristic, Friday, November 19, 2004 12:42
Leif W wrote:
Andrew Stribblehill, Thursday, November 18, 2004 07:53
Quoting Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-11-17 17:31:39
GMT):
Paul Querna wrote:
Are you familiar with FastCGI? My first impression is that most
of
what you
Quoting Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-11-17 17:31:39 GMT):
Paul Querna wrote:
I have had an idea for replacing the perchild MPM boggling around inside
my head for awhile now. This is an idea for a different architecture to
allowing different UIDs to serve httpd requests. I am
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
Quoting Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-11-17 17:31:39 GMT):
Paul Querna wrote:
I have had an idea for replacing the perchild MPM boggling around inside
my head for awhile now. This is an idea for a different architecture to
allowing different UIDs to serve
Quoting Ivan Ristic ivanr webkreator com (2004-11-17 17:31:39 GMT):
I've used FastCGI to give individual
users their own PHP engines (since PHP now comes with FastCGI protocol
support built-in).
This sounds useful - would you be willing to share some config file samples?
Max.
I have had an idea for replacing the perchild MPM boggling around inside
my head for awhile now. This is an idea for a different architecture to
allowing different UIDs to serve httpd requests. I am looking for all
feedback with my proposed approach.
First, we start with a concept I am
Paul Querna wrote:
I have had an idea for replacing the perchild MPM boggling around inside
my head for awhile now. This is an idea for a different architecture to
allowing different UIDs to serve httpd requests. I am looking for all
feedback with my proposed approach.
Are you familiar
20 matches
Mail list logo
