Shouldn't we still set "Vary: Accept-Encoding" if no-gzip is set?
Example, if I use SetEnvIf to disallow gzip for some browsers, shouldn't
we still tell proxies to vary on "Accept-Encoding"? mod_deflate will
send the Vary if the client does not have a proper Ac
At 04:17 AM 8/12/2004, Mladen Turk wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Small patch that enables building against zlib-1.2.1
>instead of ancient 1.1.4 version.
Ancient? LOL - it's less than a year old due to some bugs it addressed ;-)
However, I agree with moving to 1.2.1 - with a caviat;
now that zlib1.dll is well
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
Small patch that enables building against zlib-1.2.1
instead of ancient 1.1.4 version.
Are there any compelling reasons to move from 1.1.4 to 1.2.1? Just
curious and no time to investigate for myself right at the moment.
As stated on the official zlib
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
Small patch that enables building against zlib-1.2.1
instead of ancient 1.1.4 version.
Are there any compelling reasons to move from 1.1.4 to 1.2.1? Just curious and no time to investigate for
myself right at the moment.
Bill
Hi,
Small patch that enables building against zlib-1.2.1
instead of ancient 1.1.4 version.
Index: mod_deflate.dsp
===
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/httpd-2.0/modules/filters/mod_deflate.dsp,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -r1.10 mod_def
Hi,
attached patch makes mod_deflate compile with zlib 1.2.1 on NetWare.
thanks, Guenter.
--- NWGNUdeflate.orig Sun Mar 07 06:15:34 2004
+++ NWGNUdeflateWed Jun 30 01:24:38 2004
@@ -39,7 +39,6 @@
# These flags will come after CFLAGS
#
XCFLAGS
Joe Orton wrote:
Wouldn't it be simpler to just check for a brigade containing just EOS
and do nothing for that case in the first place?
Yes I had considered that. The initial patch covered some pathological
cases but after having looked over the code some more I think the simpler
more efficient wa
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Allan Edwards wrote:
> Running ProxyPass with mod_deflate results in
> an extraneous 20 bytes being tacked onto 304
> responses from the backend.
>
> The problem is that mod_deflate doesn't handle
> the zero byte body, adds the gzip header and
>
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:23:38PM -0400, Allan Edwards wrote:
> Running ProxyPass with mod_deflate results in
> an extraneous 20 bytes being tacked onto 304
> responses from the backend.
>
> The problem is that mod_deflate doesn't handle
> the zero byte body, adds the gzi
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Allan Edwards wrote:
> Also just realized I need to add a call to deflateEnd().
Oh right, that too. :-)
> e is on the brigade passed into deflate_out_filter and the gzip
> header bucket is in ctx->bb so that is not a problem.
Ah, yeah, that would make sense. Cool.
Cliff Woolley wrote:
I haven't looked at the entire context of this, but if you remove a bucket
(brigade_first(ctx->bb) from a brigade without deleting it and without
having any extra pointers to it, you'll leak memory.
Thanks for catching that! I'll replace APR_BUCKET_REMOVE with
a call to apr_buc
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Allan Edwards wrote:
> +}
> +else {
> +/* this was a zero length response, remove gzip header bucket then
> pass down the EOS */
> +APR_BUCKET_REMOVE(APR_BRIGADE_FIRST(ctx->bb));
> +APR_BUCKET_REMOVE(e);
>
Running ProxyPass with mod_deflate results in
an extraneous 20 bytes being tacked onto 304
responses from the backend.
The problem is that mod_deflate doesn't handle
the zero byte body, adds the gzip header and
tries to compress 0 bytes.
This patch detects the fact that there was no
da
su, 2004-04-18 kello 15:22, Nick Kew kirjoitti:
> Also a question: When I create a bucket brigade in a module, I always
> explicitly apr_brigade_destroy() it. None of the filters in mod_deflate
> destroy their brigades. A look at apr_brigade.c shows that it's not
> in fact neces
mod_deflate
destroy their brigades. A look at apr_brigade.c shows that it's not
in fact necessary, but maybe a note to that effect would be in order?
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/--- mod_deflate.c 2004-04-18 13:06:13.0 +0100
+++ mod_deflate.c.old
As discussed previously, here are my updates as a patch against 2.0.49.
They serve to enable working with compressed data coming from a proxy
(or other backend) and processing content in the output filter chain.
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
--- mod_deflate.c.old
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Your changes sound fair enough in concept, but I won't really review until it
> becomes a patch. ;-) -- justin
OK, I'll turn it into a patch. But maybe not just now after a second
glass of wine:-)
I'm thinking: my use of r->notes works well when
--On Friday, April 9, 2004 10:09 PM +0100 Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If anyone finds the time to review this, please let me have your
feedback. If people find it useful then good!
Once it's had a bit more exposure, I'll have a look at the docs
and style guide, and turn it into a patch.
Y
Wow...
In was the last minute before I did it myself...
Great!
If I could vote, I would put 1 (or even +404 ;-)
Thanks!
--
Eli Marmor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CTO, Founder
Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
__
Tel.: +972-9-766-102
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> May be also something related with transfer and chunk.
Perfectly possible.
> Stay tuned
Glued to the TV at this point.
Ok, my customer use a HTTP 1.0 socket handling but marked
HTTP 1.1 header ;(
It works now that he's use HTTP 1.0 header.
We're now trying to comp
> May be also something related with transfer and chunk.
Perfectly possible.
> Stay tuned
Glued to the TV at this point.
Yours...
Kevin
In a message dated 3/30/2004 10:22:28 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi Henri...
> Kevin again...
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Henri...
Kevin again...
Willing to try and help, Henri... but you've got to give us
something to go on here.
You are asking for crystal-ball debug.
The job doesn't pay enough for that.
Ok, my customer allow me to send the PHP code to the list
so it could be studied.
>
In a message dated 3/30/2004 9:47:53 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/30/2004 8:06:52 AM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Hi to all,
> >
> > One of my customers is
What about trying mod_gzip with Apache 2.x
-Original Message-
From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: mod_deflate vs mod_gzip
Hi to all,
One of my customers is trying to use to an Apache 2.0.47 using mod_deflate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/30/2004 8:06:52 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hi to all,
>
> One of my customers is trying to use to an Apache 2.0.47 using
mod_deflate.
>
> Its HTTP implementation works with Apache 1.3.x and mod_gzip
In a message dated 3/30/2004 8:06:52 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hi to all,
>
> One of my customers is trying to use to an Apache 2.0.47 using mod_deflate.
>
> Its HTTP implementation works with Apache 1.3.x and mod_gzip but
> not with Apache 2.0.
Hi to all,
One of my customers is trying to use to an Apache 2.0.47 using mod_deflate.
Its HTTP implementation works with Apache 1.3.x and mod_gzip but
not with Apache 2.0.47 and mod_deflate.
The PHP gzinflate and gzuncompress were used but without luck
and even when skipped 10 first chars.
Any
that looks something like this...
X-Do-not-compress-this: Dummy_value
mod_deflate has no such pickup at this time... but you
can easily just add this yourself.
Just take a look at ../modules/filers/mod_deflate.c
At the point where 'deflate_out_filter()' kicks in you have
access to both t
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
My apologies if this is better done on the user group, but I've been
reading Apache source code and trying to understand the following.
Is there any way to signal mod_deflate that a particular response should
not be deflated when:
Jess Holle wrote:
> My apologies if this is better done on the user group, but I've been
> reading Apache source code and trying to understand the following.
>
> Is there any way to signal mod_deflate that a particular response should
> not be deflated when:
>
> 1.
My apologies if this is better done on the user group, but I've been
reading Apache source code and trying to understand the following.
Is there any way to signal mod_deflate that a particular response
should not be deflated when:
the URL of the request is identical to other cases
>My reading of RFC 2616 is that Accept-encoding is only for
>content-codings.
You are right. Brain fart on my part.
I am still not sure how the discussion about mod_deflate
has gotten anywhere near "Transfer-Encoding:".
mod_deflate is NOT DOING TRANSFER ENCODING.
Was it you t
--On Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:37 PM -0500 Geoffrey Young
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
since the hackathon is so close, if people are willing to re-examine the
possibility of moving ap_meets_conditions and other entity logic to its own
filter, I'll be there :)
Sure, add it to the evergrowing l
André Malo wrote:
* Chris Elving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as I understand it, mod_deflate's practice of returning
Content-encoding: gzip but using Transfer-encoding: gzip semantics (e.g.
conditionally compressing a resource and using the same ETag for both
the compressed and non-com
* Chris Elving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I understand it, mod_deflate's practice of returning
> Content-encoding: gzip but using Transfer-encoding: gzip semantics (e.g.
> conditionally compressing a resource and using the same ETag for both
> the compressed and non-compressed forms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There also is no way, in current HTTP specs, for a Server
to distinguish between "Content-encoding" and "Transfer-encoding"
as far as what the client really means it can/can't do.
When a User-Agent says "Accept-encoding: " a Server can
only assume that it means it can
>> Andre Schild wrote:
>>
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 31.10.2003 23:44:06 >>>
>>>
>>>On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Andre Schild wrote:
>>>
>>>>Please have a look at the following Mozilla bug report
>>>>
>>>>
>> I think we should put a warning on the second "recomended configuration"
>> that compressing everything can cause problems. (Specially with PDF files)
>
>Could you file a bug against the documentation for this so it doesn't get
>forgotten?
Done.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Andre Schild wrote:
> >>
> >> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22902
> >>
> >> Any ideas on this subject ?
> >
> >It seems to me that we should only recommend the "AddOutputFilterByType"
> >configuration, since compressing everything has too many potential
> >
Andre Schild wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 31.10.2003 23:44:06 >>>
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Andre Schild wrote:
Please have a look at the following Mozilla bug report
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=224296
It seems that mod_deflate does transfer encoding,
but sets the headers as
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 31.10.2003 23:44:06 >>>
>
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Andre Schild wrote:
>> Please have a look at the following Mozilla bug report
>>
>> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=224296
>>
>> It seems that mod_deflate does
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Andre Schild wrote:
> Please have a look at the following Mozilla bug report
>
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=224296
>
> It seems that mod_deflate does transfer encoding,
> but sets the headers as if doing content encoding.
I'm not an e
Hello,
today I noticed a problem with our webserver (Upgraded yesterday from 2.0.47 to .48),
concering PDF files.
We have mod_deflate active on the server and
use the default config for this as described on
the the module config page, where we compress everything, except images.
http
* John Huong wrote:
> Based on
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9222
>
> mod_deflate shouldn't do anything when let's say my
> PHP script outputs with the header;
Please do not crosspost in bugzilla and [EMAIL PROTECTED] That makes it much ha
Based on
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9222
mod_deflate shouldn't do anything when let's say my
PHP script outputs with the header;
Content-Encoding: deflate
Unfortunately, I've noticed that it still does it
occasionally.
Here's part of the transmission
re no HTTP clients that only
supports deflate.. well here are two. I hope it is
enough to encourage further development on mod_deflate
to support it.
Thanks.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
s a chance to recover. I'm use to this balancing act
with mod_perl. Generally, I use MaxClients to keeps things under
control. I'm at 20 now, but I could try going lower with mod_deflate
on. It could be, I'm just playing it too close to the edge. Usually, it's
memory con
Bill Marrs wrote:
Ian,
I'm cross posting this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I had been a user of Apache 1.3 and mod_gzip, but I recently upgraded to
Apache 2.0 and I'm trying to use mod_deflate.
I got it working fairly well, but it's causing high load and page
timeouts during peak perio
+ high CPU load = Something other than
> compression is eating the CPU and stopping compressions
> won't really make much difference.
>
> High transaction count + high CPU load + high number
> of compressions in progress = Might be best to back
> off on the compressions for a m
FYI: There was a serious brain fart (mine) in the
previous message...
I said...
>> 2. If there's no EOS in the brigade yet you have to assume
>> more is coming so now it's nut-crackin' time. If the 'minimum
>> file size' is less than the amount of data already in the first
>> brigade showing up
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Stephen Pierzchala wrote:
>>
>> All:
>>
>> A question for discussion: should a lower bound be set in mod_deflate?
>>
>> I just ran a test using the Linux Documentation Project files and found
>> that some
Stephen Pierzchala wrote:
All:
A question for discussion: should a lower bound be set in mod_deflate?
I just ran a test using the Linux Documentation Project files and found
that some of the files in the test group were quite small, less that 100
bytes. When mod_deflate tackled these files, I
All:
A question for discussion: should a lower bound be set in mod_deflate?
I just ran a test using the Linux Documentation Project files and found
that some of the files in the test group were quite small, less that 100
bytes. When mod_deflate tackled these files, I saw a file sized increase
of
002/12/09 05:19:18
Modified: jk/native/apache-2.0 mod_jk.c Log: Make jk works with
filters in Apache 2.0, ie mod_deflate and
AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/html.
I can confirm this now "does the right thing" with Apache 2.0.39 under
FreeBSD running mod_jk from CVS HEAD and m
omez 2002/12/09 05:19:18
>
>Modified: jk/native/apache-2.0 mod_jk.c Log: Make jk works with
> filters in Apache 2.0, ie mod_deflate and
>
>AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/html.
I can confirm this now "does the right thing" with Apache 2.0.39 under
FreeBSD runn
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> As of right now, we have no plans to add 'deflate' support. I'm
> not aware of any browsers/client that support 'deflate' rather
> than 'gzip.'
>
> My guess is that the encapsulation format is slightly different
> than with gzip, but I really haven
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 12:13:25PM -0800, Xiaodong Shen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am playing with mod_deflate that comes with 2.0.43, it works nice for
> Accept-Encoding: gzip, however it always returns the identity version of
> the requested resource if Accept-Encoding: deflate is
Hi there,
I am playing with mod_deflate that comes with 2.0.43, it works nice for
Accept-Encoding: gzip, however it always returns the identity version of
the requested resource if Accept-Encoding: deflate is provided in the
request.
My question is why Accept-Encoding: deflate is not supported
Henri Gomez wrote:
Brian Pane wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
I played with mod_deflate with Apache 2.0.39 on one of
my iSeries and got Apache exit due to Thread Errors.
Did there is known problem with deflate present in 2.0.39,
which has been solved in 2.0.43 and later ?
Hum, it may be related
Brian Pane wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
I played with mod_deflate with Apache 2.0.39 on one of
my iSeries and got Apache exit due to Thread Errors.
Did there is known problem with deflate present in 2.0.39,
which has been solved in 2.0.43 and later ?
Hum, it may be related to mod_jk/mod_deflate
Henri Gomez wrote:
I played with mod_deflate with Apache 2.0.39 on one of
my iSeries and got Apache exit due to Thread Errors.
Did there is known problem with deflate present in 2.0.39,
which has been solved in 2.0.43 and later ?
There have been a number of mod_deflate fixes since 2.0.39
I played with mod_deflate with Apache 2.0.39 on one of
my iSeries and got Apache exit due to Thread Errors.
Did there is known problem with deflate present in 2.0.39,
which has been solved in 2.0.43 and later ?
Also did you know about thread issue in ZLIB 1.1.4 ?
Regards
.4-dev and also mod_webapp
to set the content type the correct way, previously there was
a direct set of content-type and I now use ap_set_content_type :
---
hgomez 2002/12/09 05:19:18
Modified:jk/native/apache-2.0 mod_jk.c
Log:
Make jk works with filters in Apache 2.0, ie mod_d
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Henri Gomez wrote:
> Ok, it works with SetOutputFilter DEFLATE, I'm now wonder
> how to remove *.gif/*.jpg and *.js from being compressed.
I think you will find yourself much better off if you take a few minutes
to peruse:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/mod_deflate.html
Henri Gomez wrote:
André Malo wrote:
* Henri Gomez wrote:
Ok, it works with SetOutputFilter DEFLATE, I'm now wonder
how to remove *.gif/*.jpg and *.js from being compressed.
hmm.
SetEnv no-gzip
Hum, it didn't seems to works on my iSeries.
Neither with :
SetEnvIfNoCase Request_URI
André Malo wrote:
* Henri Gomez wrote:
Ok, it works with SetOutputFilter DEFLATE, I'm now wonder
how to remove *.gif/*.jpg and *.js from being compressed.
hmm.
SetEnv no-gzip
Hum, it didn't seems to works on my iSeries.
Neither with :
SetEnvIfNoCase Request_URI \.(?:gif|jpe?g|png)$ no
* Henri Gomez wrote:
> Ok, it works with SetOutputFilter DEFLATE, I'm now wonder
> how to remove *.gif/*.jpg and *.js from being compressed.
hmm.
SetEnv no-gzip
?
If mod_jk uses the appropriate Apache API call (ap_set_content_type),
AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/html
works, too.
nd
Joshua Slive wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Henri Gomez wrote:
I built deflate and jk but deflate seems to compress
only static (ie no servlet/jsp) contents.
AddOutputFilter DEFLATE html
Either I'm missing something silly, or you are. But don't you want
SetOutputFilter DEFLATE
What y
--On Wednesday, December 4, 2002 5:23 PM -0800 Joshua Slive
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are some problems with AddOutputFilterByType. It doesn't
work with DefaultType, and it doesn't work with modules that
change the type unless they "do the right thing" (which many of
them don't; I don't
> > You are only installing the DEFLATE filter on files that end in
> > .html. Try this instead:
> >
> > SetEnv gzip-only-text/html 1
> > SetOutputFilter DEFLATE
>
> Um, wouldn't:
>
> AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/html
>
> be better? gzip-only-text/html really isn't needed.
Yea, that occ
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Um, wouldn't:
>
> AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/html
>
> be better? gzip-only-text/html really isn't needed.
>
There are some problems with AddOutputFilterByType. It doesn't work with
DefaultType, and it doesn't work with modules that chang
--On Wednesday, December 4, 2002 10:42 AM -0500 Bill Stoddard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are only installing the DEFLATE filter on files that end in
.html. Try this instead:
SetEnv gzip-only-text/html 1
SetOutputFilter DEFLATE
Um, wouldn't:
AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/html
be b
You are only installing the DEFLATE filter on files that end in .html. Try this
instead:
SetEnv gzip-only-text/html 1
SetOutputFilter DEFLATE
Bill
> Hi to all,
>
> I built deflate and jk but deflate seems to compress
> only static (ie no servlet/jsp) contents.
>
> I've used :
>
> Listen x.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Henri Gomez wrote:
> I built deflate and jk but deflate seems to compress
> only static (ie no servlet/jsp) contents.
> AddOutputFilter DEFLATE html
Either I'm missing something silly, or you are. But don't you want
SetOutputFilter DEFLATE
What you have won't work u
Hi to all,
I built deflate and jk but deflate seems to compress
only static (ie no servlet/jsp) contents.
I've used :
Listen x.x.x.x:y
NameVirtualHost x.x.x.x:y
ServerName host.domain.tld
AddOutputFilter DEFLATE html
AllowOverride None
AllowOverride None
D
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 09:58 AM 11/21/2002, Henri Gomez wrote:
So what about for 2.0.45 dev ?
My prediction about interest in such a switch was independent of
timeframe. I doubt that such a switch will ever happen.
2.0.44 won't be the last 2.0 release isn't it ?
No... 2.0.45 will
Ok, let be pragmatic. Did Apache HTTP developpers agree that
compression should be added in Apache 2.0 by incorporating mod_gzip
comp code in Apache 2.0 ?
mod_deflate is already there and it uses an external zlib library, so
I'm confused why we should also provide mod_gzip and/o
e optional not
> mandatory.)
>
>> Ok, let be pragmatic. Did Apache HTTP developpers agree that
>> compression should be added in Apache 2.0 by incorporating mod_gzip
>> comp code in Apache 2.0 ?
>
> mod_deflate is already there and it uses an external zlib library, so
re doing a mod_jk, zlib support should be optional not
mandatory.)
Ok, let be pragmatic. Did Apache HTTP developpers agree that
compression should be added in Apache 2.0 by incorporating mod_gzip
comp code in Apache 2.0 ?
mod_deflate is already there and it uses an external zlib library, so
I'
ple. Another would be ungzipping cached content based
on the client accept-encoding details.
>>>- Put part of zlib code in Apache 2.0 source ?
>>
>>that is what I suspect to be the safest, easiest-to-understand way...
>>the build would work like on Windows, where the proje
I also refer you to the discussion thread regarding the
original inclusion of mod_deflate which contains some
'advice' posted to the Apache forum from Dr. Mark Adler
( one of the original authors of all this GZIP/ZLIB LZ77
code ).
He suggested that compiling your OWN version of GZI
>> Henri Gomez wrote...
>>
>> - Put part of zlib code in Apache 2.0 source ?
>
> Jeff Trawick wrote...
>
> that is what I suspect to be the safest, easiest-to-understand way...
> the build would work like on Windows, where the project file for
> mod_deflate pu
Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
And in fine what about mod_deflate to be added by default in
Apache 2.0.44 ?
Here's a reason for this. Content encoding and the ability to send
compressed data is part of the HTTP standard and if Apache 2.x is really
HTTP compliant then it should support it.
ib code in Apache 2.0 source ?
that is what I suspect to be the safest, easiest-to-understand way...
the build would work like on Windows, where the project file for
mod_deflate pulls in the right parts when building mod_deflate.so
Ok
another nice feature of this is that if we know we are using
>> And in fine what about mod_deflate to be added by default in
>> Apache 2.0.44 ?
Here's a reason for this. Content encoding and the ability to send
compressed data is part of the HTTP standard and if Apache 2.x is really
HTTP compliant then it should support it.
Why buil
Henri Gomez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > Henri Gomez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>And in fine what about mod_deflate to be added by default in
> >>Apache 2.0.44 ?
> >>
> >>And if so should we use the
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Henri Gomez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
And in fine what about mod_deflate to be added by default in
Apache 2.0.44 ?
And if so should we use the mod_gzip compression functions instead of
depending on zlib ?
I would be shocked if any significant subset of the peop
Henri Gomez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And in fine what about mod_deflate to be added by default in
> Apache 2.0.44 ?
>
> And if so should we use the mod_gzip compression functions instead of
> depending on zlib ?
I would be shocked if any significant subset of the peopl
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Pie is rarely free at a truck stop.
At least none that you would want to dip your fingers into
And in fine what about mod_deflate to be added by default in
Apache 2.0.44 ?
And if so should we use the mod_gzip compression functions instead of
depending on zlib ?
> Pie is rarely free at a truck stop.
>
At least none that you would want to dip your fingers into
B
>> Peter J. Cranstone wrote...
>>
>> Since when does web server throughput drop by x% factor using
>> mod_deflate?
>
> Jeff Trawick wrote...
>
> I don't think you need me to explain the "why" or the "when" to you.
Think again.
Exactly
"Peter J. Cranstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since when does web server throughput drop by x% factor using
> mod_deflate?
I don't think you need me to explain the "why" or the "when" to you.
> We went through this debate with mod_gzip
something like this in httpd.conf:
JkWorkersFile /tomcat/conf/workers.properties
JkExtractSSL On
JkHTTPSIndicator HTTPS
JkSESSIONIndicator SSL_SESSION_ID
JkCIPHERIndicator SSL_CIPHER
JkCERTSIndicator SSL_CLIENT_CERT
PS, there is no need to set Jk SSL env since there
are set to
Kris Verbeeck wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
BTW, I'll next check if mod_deflate works in conjunction with
mod_jk/mod_jk2 (where I'm commiter).
It works, at least for me.
Good news :)
And it works for any JSP/Servlet contents send back from the servlet
engine to the browser ?
I&#
t by x% factor you may make
yourself sad :)
What do you means by dropping the web server throughput by x% factor,
when you compress replies you send them quicker isn't it ?
So adding mod_deflate to the default distribution, under control of
configure which will verify if zlib is avail
Henri Gomez wrote:
BTW, I'll next check if mod_deflate works in conjunction with
mod_jk/mod_jk2 (where I'm commiter).
It works, at least for me.
Good news :)
And it works for any JSP/Servlet contents send back from the servlet
engine to the browser ?
I'll be happy to se
Since when does web server throughput drop by x% factor using
mod_deflate?
We went through this debate with mod_gzip and it doesn't hold much
water. Server boxes are cheap and adding some more ram or even a faster
processor is a cheap price to pay when compared to customer satisfaction
when
Title: RE: [PATCH] mod_deflate extensions
I agree that mod_deflate should be part of the distribution.
Are there any issues with apache including zlib in the distribution?
Best regards,
Juan C. Rivera
Citrix Systems, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:[EMAIL
factor you may make
yourself sad :)
> So adding mod_deflate to the default distribution, under control of
> configure which will verify if zlib is available on the system to enable
> it, shouldn't hurt.
I wish it were so simple as finding a zlib, but static zlib
distributed
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 02:42 AM 11/11/2002, Henri Gomez wrote:
>
>>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>>--On Friday, November 8, 2002 5:52 PM +0100 Henri Gomez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some questions about mod_deflat
301 - 400 of 464 matches
Mail list logo
