--On Sunday, October 10, 2004 9:32 PM +0200 Andreas Steinmetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yes, the support directory was my intention. Below is my current version
which is tested and really feature complete. If I don't detect any bugs
in this version it is going to be the final version. Some remar
--On Saturday, October 9, 2004 1:44 AM +0200 Andreas Steinmetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
htcacheclean, take two:
Code cleanups, more apr style coding, presumably feature complete, now
built against apache 2.1 cvs. Needs further testing and especially
niceness tuning. See code below. Comments wel
htcacheclean, take two:
Code cleanups, more apr style coding, presumably feature complete, now
built against apache 2.1 cvs. Needs further testing and especially
niceness tuning. See code below. Comments welcome.
--
Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/* Copyright
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Feel free to submit a patch that efficiently allows the constraint of
the cache size. I just don't see a way to do that as mod_disk_cache
does not have any indexing.
IMHO, instead of making a false promise, we should remove it. If we
were to add such a feature later,
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 12:12:57PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Thursday, October 7, 2004 12:13 PM -0600 Jean-Jacques Clar
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I won't probably agree if we use 'Waboozle', and I suggest that the
> >description
> >should with the name of the module like MemC
--On Thursday, October 7, 2004 12:13 PM -0600 Jean-Jacques Clar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I won't probably agree if we use 'Waboozle', and I suggest that the
description
should with the name of the module like MemCache* and DiskCache* to
make it easier for related directives to be grouped togeth
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/07/04 11:14 AM >>>
--On Thursday, October 7, 2004 9:08 AM -0600 Jean-Jacques Clar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>I *really* don't like the M prefix at all. I'd much prefer us to just spell >the thing out: CacheMem* and CacheDisk* instead of MCache and/or DCache. I >think a s
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Thursday, October 7, 2004 7:21 PM +0200 Andreas Steinmetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not nice, IMHO. One major problem that prevents the use of apache 2.x
for me
is the fact that the cache size cannot be constrained. A cache that
can grow
without constraint can't b
--On Thursday, October 7, 2004 7:21 PM +0200 Andreas Steinmetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Not nice, IMHO. One major problem that prevents the use of apache 2.x for me
is the fact that the cache size cannot be constrained. A cache that can grow
without constraint can't be used on production system
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
That said, there are a number of directives currently in mod_disk_cache
that aren't implemented (and I don't see being implemented anytime
soon): such as CacheSize, CacheGcInterval, CacheExpiryCheck,
CacheTimeMargin, CacheGcDaily, CacheGcUnused, CacheGcClean,
CacheGcMem
--On Thursday, October 7, 2004 9:08 AM -0600 Jean-Jacques Clar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All the directives for mod_mem_cache are preceded with an "M".
The ones for mod_cache are starting with a "c"
Should all the disk_cache directives be preceded with a "D" for
consistency and clarity?
I know i
All the directives for mod_mem_cache are preceded with an "M".
The ones for mod_cache are starting with a "c"
Should all the disk_cache directives be preceded with a "D" for
consistency and clarity?
I know it is going to break every user configuration, but before
the modules move out of experime
12 matches
Mail list logo
