On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:18:38 -0800, Justin Erenkrantz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon? (Yes, I volunteer
to be RM.) How about targetting next Tuesday (2/8) for 2.0.53? I can lay
down the candidate tarball on Friday morning, so whatever backports
Brad Nicholes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, January 31, 2005 2:26:09 PM
I'd love to see the LDAP socket timeout configuration stuff make it in
for 2.0.53!
--
Jess Holle
justin
Me too ;) Any voters out there?
Jess Holle said:
I don't have a vote, but I believe the socket timeout configuration is
necessary to address issues seen with firewall timeouts and the LDAP
connections held open by Apache.
Is there an outstanding patch for this yet?
The right way to solve this problem is to allocate the
Graham Leggett wrote:
Jess Holle said:
I don't have a vote, but I believe the socket timeout configuration is
necessary to address issues seen with firewall timeouts and the LDAP
connections held open by Apache.
Is there an outstanding patch for this yet?
The right way to solve
I have already added a new directive to util_ldap called
LDAPConnectionTimeout (
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.1/mod/mod_ldap.html#ldapconnectiontimeout
) which allows util_ldap to set the network timeout through
rc = apr_ldap_set_option(p, NULL, LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT,
I hate to say it but any solution would be appreciated.
This is the one brick wall customers are running into when trying to
use Apache (with mod_auth_ldap and mod_jk being the heaviest
dependencies beyond core functionality).
--
Jess Holle
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I have already added a
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I have already added a new directive to util_ldap called
LDAPConnectionTimeout (
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.1/mod/mod_ldap.html#ldapconnectiontimeout
) which allows util_ldap to set the network timeout through
rc = apr_ldap_set_option(p, NULL, LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT,
Ouch!
Does the MS LDAP SDK define anything equivalent?
Fixing this on some platforms is better than on none, though.
--
Jess Holle
Mladen Turk wrote:
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I have already added a new directive to util_ldap called
LDAPConnectionTimeout (
I don't have a vote, but I believe the socket timeout configuration is
necessary to address issues seen with firewall timeouts and the LDAP
connections held open by Apache.
--
Jess Holle
I don't know if this is the best time/place to make a request for
patches to be included in 2.0.53, but
I was hoping that this wouldn't be the case. But since it is, take a
look at SVN r149419
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:39:20 AM
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I have already added a new directive to util_ldap called
LDAPConnectionTimeout (
--On Tuesday, February 1, 2005 6:41 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heck, I don't know how we get from here to closure on the 2.1-dev
equivalent ;) What do we do with the proxy-reqbody branch? Merge to
trunk?
Is it ready to be reviewed? I'd suggest asking for review to merge it
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I was hoping that this wouldn't be the case. But since it is, take a
look at SVN r149419
util_ldap.c
util_ldap.c(1615) : error C2065: 's' : undeclared identifier
util_ldap.c(1615) : warning C4047: 'function' : 'const server_rec *'
differs in levels of indirection from
I hate it when I get bit by copy and paste. Try r149421.
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:23:01 AM
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I was hoping that this wouldn't be the case. But since it is, take
a
look at SVN r149419
util_ldap.c
util_ldap.c(1615) : error C2065: 's' :
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 1, 2005 6:41 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heck, I don't know how we get from here to closure on the 2.1-dev
equivalent ;) What do we do with the proxy-reqbody branch? Merge to
trunk?
Is it ready to be reviewed?
The LDAP_OPT_SEND_TIMEOUT option appears to be a Microsoft LDAP SDK
only option. As I see it we can go in a couple of different ways here.
1) Implement the connection pool as an apr_reslist and let it handle
the connection timeouts as Graham suggested.
2) Add another #ifdef to the existing
--On Tuesday, February 1, 2005 10:33 AM -0700 Brad Nicholes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The LDAP_OPT_SEND_TIMEOUT option appears to be a Microsoft LDAP SDK
only option. As I see it we can go in a couple of different ways here.
OpenLDAP has LDAP_OPT_TIMELIMIT, LDAP_OPT_TIMEOUT, and
The Novell SDK has the same options but they all perform different
functions
LDAP_OPT_TIMELIMIT - Searching timeout
LDAP_OPT_TIMEOUT - default timeout value
LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT - Socket level timeout
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:41:04 AM
--On Tuesday, February
Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon? (Yes, I volunteer
to be RM.) How about targetting next Tuesday (2/8) for 2.0.53? I can lay
down the candidate tarball on Friday morning, so whatever backports are
merged by then make it. =)
Do we want closure on Jeff's proxy chunking
I'd love to see the LDAP socket timeout configuration stuff make it in
for 2.0.53!
--
Jess Holle
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon? (Yes, I
volunteer to be RM.) How about targetting next Tuesday (2/8) for
2.0.53? I can lay down the candidate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, January 31, 2005 2:26:09 PM
I'd love to see the LDAP socket timeout configuration stuff make it in
for 2.0.53!
--
Jess Holle
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon? (Yes, I
volunteer to be RM.) How about targetting next
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:19 PM
Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon?
Nope.
(Yes, I volunteer to be RM.)
Thanks Justin.
How about targetting next Tuesday (2/8) for 2.0.53? I can lay
down the candidate tarball
21 matches
Mail list logo
