William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I've been working with the 2.4 authn/z stuff a bit lately and
what I keep tripping over is that the default authorization merge rule
uses OR logic. For example, if I enable mod_access_compat and
put in a traditional:
I wonder if anyone would offer a fastfeather t
Chris Darroch wrote:
I've been working with the 2.4 authn/z stuff a bit lately and
what I keep tripping over is that the default authorization merge rule
uses OR logic. For example, if I enable mod_access_compat and
put in a traditional:
I wonder if anyone would offer a fastfeather talk nex
On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me, which is why we need to get a 2.3-beta out
there for testing.
That would be good as well... that way we can determine
how solid the existing impl is, so when the new stuff is
added we know the "old" stuff is still goo
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'd -1 a 2.4.0 release today, because nobody has even bothered to make
a candidate for 2.3-dev. Auth logic changes break most if not all third
party auth modules (broke an auth feature in mod_ftp). Not talking about
commercial modules but every third party auth
Nick Kew wrote:
But before that, we need a vision of where we're going,
and how to get there without breaking what we've got.
* server_conf goes away. Modules have zero or more "conf" sections,
essentially today's misnamed dir_conf, which are initialized and
merged as they are today.
>>> On 4/3/2008 at 8:23 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Plüm,
Rüdiger, VF-Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: Jim Jagielski
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 16:07
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:13:31 -0500
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The hope. Those admins who refuse to let their junior admins use that
> directive should have a level of control over their outward facing
> heavily-loaded machines :)
The logic is approximately cloned from ,
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Akins, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Very rough draft. But this is not necessarily slow... ;)
Right.
Even then, the user/admin may be willing to burn CPU cycles anyway to
get a simpler config. Plus, if they were to use mod_rew
Nick Kew wrote:
is of course a crusty old relative.
Limit is unrelated, it's fundamentally borked (directive must know
it is participating in a limit-ed section, cannot overly multiple
limit-ed sections because that directive has never created a conf
section, and there is no exception thrown
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:06:50AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along
> > and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too
> > much ripping with the inevita
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Akins, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very rough draft. But this is not necessarily slow... ;)
Right.
Even then, the user/admin may be willing to burn CPU cycles anyway to
get a simpler config. Plus, if they were to use mod_rewrite, they've
already blown
On 4/3/08 11:38 AM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>
> Slow
Not if the parsing is done at config time and HTTP_Method is handle by a
provider. Some pseudo code:
At config time, the parser would do something like:
parse_provider *prov;
void
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:25:56 -0400
"Akins, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/3/08 10:47 AM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'll commit the
>
>
> ...
>
May work already (not tested) if Rewrite is active
(so method is available as an env var). Certainly
on th
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 4/3/08 10:47 AM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll commit the
...
Slow
On 4/3/08 10:47 AM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll commit the
...
;)
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
Plüm wrote:
2. My feeling regarding the usage of 2.2 is that since about 6 month we are
getting
track as commercial 3rd parties now supply modules for httpd 2.2. This means
that
will have to maintain one more stable branch for quite some time and to be
honest
currently we effectively
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:06:50AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along
> and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too
> much ripping with the inevitable delays associated with that :)
Is there really enough news in trunk to warran
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Jim Jagielski
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 16:07
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was
> Re: Dynamic configuration for the hackathon?])
>
> Another good topic of discussion:
>
> Time for a
18 matches
Mail list logo
