DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37682.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-94?page=comments#action_12358781
]
Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-94:
---
I thought about the ctypes approach when I proposed the first code I
referenced. The problem was how you dealt with
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Hi,
Is it me or is it quite tiresome to get the URL that called us, or get
the complete URL that would call another function ?
When performing an external redirect (using mod_python.util.redirect for
example), we MUST (as per RFC) provide a full URL, not a relative
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
def current_url(req):
[snip]
# host
current_url.append(req.hostname)
[snip]
This part isn't going to work reliably if you are not using virtual hosts
and just bind to an IP number. Deciphering the URL is an impossible task -
I used to
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
I still think the correct place to create the index dictionary is in the
__init__ phase. Using the dictionary-on-demand idea only improves performance
on the second access to a form field. For the first access you are still
iterating through the
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nick wrote:
Just one comment. It seems like it would be better just to make
add_method inline, since everything else in __init__ is, and it never
gets called from anywhere else.
add_method?
Haha, thanks, I haven't had coffee yet. The add_item method, that is. :)
I
Daniel J. Popowich wrote:
Jim Gallacher writes:
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Second question, if there isn't any simpler way to do this, should we
add it to mod_python ? Either as a function like above in
mod_python.util, or as a member of the request object (named something
like url to match the
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
Daniel J. Popowich wrote:
Here, here!! I've wanted parsed_uri to work as expected for quite
some time...I'm actually in a position where I could devote some time
to tracking this down. If apache doesn't provide
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy writes:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
If I understand you correctly, req.hostname is not reliable in case where
virtual hosting is not used. What about server.server_hostname, which seems
to be used by the code from mod_rewrite you posted below ?
Just one comment. It seems like it would be better just to make
add_method inline, since everything else in __init__ is, and it
never gets called from anywhere else.
s/_method/_field/g
The thing I had in mind when I built the add_field method was that I
could subclass FieldStorage and give
Daniel J. Popowich wrote:
By the Host header. I've been looking into this issue tonight and
think I have the answers (but it's really late, so I'll save the gory
details for tomorrow). In brief: typically, req.hostname is set from
the Host header and, in fact, when I telnet to apache and issue
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Okay, I lied, slightly:
* svn r348009: Added AP_DECLARE to mod_dbd exported functions. No
Hi,Is it me or is it quite tiresome to get the URL that called us, or get the complete URL that would call another function ?When performing an external redirect (using
mod_python.util.redirect for example), we MUST (as per RFC) provide a full URL, not a relative one. Instead of
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:55:48PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:55:48PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
Available from:
http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.2.0/
FWIW, the MIME types for the .md5 files seem to be wrong.
The .bz2.md5 is served as application/x-tar and .gz.md5 is
application/x-gzip.
Luc
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 08:32, Paul Querna wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Okay, I lied, slightly:
* svn
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:55:48PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
On 11/29/05, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Okay, I lied, slightly:
Shouldn't the
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
these days.
--
Jess Holle
Nick Kew wrote:
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 08:32, Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
these days.
mod_dbd isn't included in the win32
hi everyone
i am new to this list.
since there is no faq available i simple post my request and see what happens.
sorry if i miss any rule.
i have a apache 2.0 in loadbalncing mode using mod_rewrite and mod_proxy.
there have allways been problems with https/ssl requests that where longer than
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
these days.
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not go out the door until we can build mod_authn_db and mod_dbd
on windows.
Steffen
- Original Message
Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not go out the door until we can build mod_authn_db and mod_dbd
on windows.
+1
--
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
How are you building these? there's no .dsp file for either, nor are
they in Makefile.win.
The distributed source tree not building is one thing, but modules
people
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 12:24, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache
When I see this list then I get the feeling that 2.1/2.2 is not a lot tested
on Win32 yet.
I build 2.2 on Win32 (without mod_dbd).
If you want to test it, you can get the win32 binary from me, please contact
me off-list.
Also I build some popular modules (mod_security, mod_view, mod_watch,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not go out the door until we can build
Jim Gallacher writes:
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Second question, if there isn't any simpler way to do this, should we
add it to mod_python ? Either as a function like above in
mod_python.util, or as a member of the request object (named something
like url to match the other member named
Can you try HEAD on httpd-trunk for a fix until something
more robust as far as the connections are implemented...
Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not go out the door
Mike Looijmans wrote:
How about we make the first call to get or __getitem__ create the
dictionary? We could put code in __getattr__ to create it when it's
referenced.
For starters, most of the methods such as keys, has_key and so on will
raise an exception since you don't create the
Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not go out the door
Just one comment. It seems like it would be better just to make add_method
inline, since everything else in __init__ is, and it never gets called from
anywhere else.
But it looks good and probably fairly optimal. I personally like to see
properties instead of __getattr__ for known
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 15:03, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:16:04AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
mod_dbd is explicitly mentioned as a new feature of 2.2
and, therefore, a compelling reason to upgrade. Either
we stop refering to mod_dbd as something special enough
to warrant special attention as a core enhancement or
we fix it
Jim Gallacher wrote:
For starters, most of the methods such as keys, has_key and so on will
raise an exception since you don't create the dictionary until after one
of the fields is accessed via __getitem__. Also, has_key will return
false for a field that actually exists if that field has not
Nick wrote:
Just one comment. It seems like it would be better just to make
add_method inline, since everything else in __init__ is, and it never
gets called from anywhere else.
add_method?
But it looks good and probably fairly optimal. I personally like to see
properties instead of
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:16:04AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
mod_dbd is explicitly mentioned as a new feature of 2.2
and, therefore, a compelling reason to upgrade. Either
we stop refering to mod_dbd as something special enough
to warrant special attention as
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I would agree, as long as we remove it for the What's New
pages until it actually works and builds.
My point, obviously, was that we can't have it both ways and
say mod_dbd is great and a new core enhancement if it doesn't
even
On 11/29/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I would agree, as long as we remove it for the What's New
pages until it actually works and builds.
My point, obviously, was that we can't have it both ways and
say
On Nov 29, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:16:04AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
mod_dbd is explicitly mentioned as a new feature of 2.2
and, therefore, a compelling reason to upgrade. Either
we stop refering to
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Why not add a special 'except on Windows' clause to that page?
It's not like it'll never work. Someone will get around to fixing it.
IMHO, this is exactly what release notes are for. -- justin
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 15:22, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We can note it in the release
notes and move along. -- justin
Indeed, that's fine by me.
I've just committed a documentation update to Trunk.
If we backport that to branch-2.2, I'll withdraw my objections.
--
Nick Kew
The fact that no one has ever cared to make mod_dbd work on Windows until
the precise instance that we're to go to GA is complete evidence that this
is not a showstopper. It's not even in the default build!
I cared, when I recall mod_dbd was compiling with a former apr (pity I do
not know
On Nov 29, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I would agree, as long as we remove it for the What's New
pages until it actually works and builds.
My point, obviously, was that we can't have it both ways and
say mod_dbd
Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:16:04AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
mod_dbd is explicitly mentioned as a new feature of 2.2
and, therefore, a compelling reason to upgrade. Either
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:46:55AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Either we:
1. Remove it from the feature list
2. Keep it in there, but document that it doesn't
build under Win32
3. Someone who knows Win32 adds whatever magic is required
to have it build.
#2 would be in the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:46:55AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Either we:
1. Remove it from the feature list
2. Keep it in there, but document that it doesn't
build under Win32
3. Someone who knows Win32 adds whatever magic is required
to
2005/11/29, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote: def current_url(req):[snip]# hostcurrent_url.append(req.hostname)[snip]This part isn't going to work reliably if you are not using virtual hosts
and just bind to an IP number. Deciphering the URL
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:56:56AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
#2 would be in the release notes.
I don't think anyone has said we wouldn't note it.
That wasn't clear at the start of this thread. There was a tone
of I don't care, that's no reason to stop the release and
the impression
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:20:50PM +, Nick Kew wrote:
As for suddenly waking up, please note the date on
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-httpd-devm=113266737311013w=2
mod_dbd compiles fine for me when I remove the AP_DECLARE wrappers
actually. But that might break the symbol export
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
For starters, most of the methods such as keys, has_key and so on will
raise an exception since you don't create the dictionary until after
one of the fields is accessed via __getitem__. Also, has_key will
return false for a field that actually exists if that
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nick wrote:
Just one comment. It seems like it would be better just to make
add_method inline, since everything else in __init__ is, and it never
gets called from anywhere else.
add_method?
Haha, thanks, I haven't had coffee yet. The add_item method,
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
If I understand you correctly, req.hostname is not reliable in case where
virtual hosting is not used. What about server.server_hostname, which seems
to be used by the code from mod_rewrite you posted below ? Can it be used
reliably ?
I don't think
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
2005/11/29, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Shall we add this code to the native part of the request object, then ? Or
the server object (without the URL part), maybe ?
No, I wasn't suggesting that by any means :-) The point was to
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
I still think the correct place to create the index dictionary is in
the __init__ phase. Using the dictionary-on-demand idea only improves
performance on the second access to a form field. For the first access
you
Win32 is not special. It's a second-class citizen if anything because
it gets so little developer attention.
And how many people compile the thing on Windows anyway, except the msi
builder? My guess is that I need about 2 hands to count them
Joost
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
What I did suggest was:
I think a more interesting and mod_python-ish thing to do would be to
expose all the API's used in the above code (e.g. ap_get_server_name,
ap_is_default_port, ap_http_method) FIRST, then think about this.
+1. I think it would be
I didn't expect the NetWare fixes to go in until 2.2.1. Thanks for
including them.
+1 GA (NetWare)
Brad
On 11/29/2005 at 1:32:32 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
*
We don't until the first GA release, but from there on out we compile
just about every release ourselves as we often end up applying our own
patches when we find issues (submitting them back, of course) and we do
our own cross-platform installation packaging, automated configuration,
etc, of
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 16:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-AP_DECLARE(void) ap_dbd_prepare(server_rec *s, const char *query,
+DBD_DECLARE(void) ap_dbd_prepare(server_rec *s, const char *query,
const char *label)
OK, other modules do this. Yet the #defines
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:25:31PM +, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 16:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-AP_DECLARE(void) ap_dbd_prepare(server_rec *s, const char *query,
+DBD_DECLARE(void) ap_dbd_prepare(server_rec *s, const char *query,
Paul Querna wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Okay, I lied, slightly:
* svn r348009: Added AP_DECLARE to mod_dbd
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:30:30AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
My vote, +1 for GA, tested lightly on FreeBSD 5.4/x86, and OSX
10.4.3/ppc. Also based on diff of the 2.1.10 and 2.2.0 tarballs.
+1 here too, tested on ubuntu.
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
I've only started using properites and I hadn't thought of that. If we
were to use such a feature is that the sort detail that would be
included in the user documentation, or would the coder just be
expected to read the source?
You CAN read the source if
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
these days.
O.k., can any win32 users please test
This is probably way off topic for this list. I was searching for
something related to php this morning (I know, I know... But some people
here need php) and the majority of the google hits where FUD sites.
Most of them generally say Apache is bloated and slow, you should use
X. I know we
--On November 29, 2005 2:50:19 PM -0500 Brian Akins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is probably way off topic for this list. I was searching for
something related to php this morning (I know, I know... But some people
here need php) and the majority of the google hits where FUD sites. Most
of
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Most high-traffic sites keep their details under wraps. If you are
willing to have some information made public (i.e. how much traffic you
do, how many servers, etc.), I'm sure we could post a page on our
website towards that end.
Would this be a worthwhile
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
It'd be nice to
complement that information with other sites who have far more
complicated setups. -- justin
This could also be part of a press release announcing 2.2. Just between
Brian and Colm we could have a couple impressive-sounding quotes.
Joshua.
--On November 29, 2005 3:16:43 PM -0500 Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This could also be part of a press release announcing 2.2. Just between
Brian and Colm we could have a couple impressive-sounding quotes.
Agreed. If they're up for being quoted, they'd be great. -- justin
Joshua Slive wrote:
This could also be part of a press release announcing 2.2. Just between
Brian and Colm we could have a couple impressive-sounding quotes.
I know that a press release is out of the question for my company. We
do not endorse or disparage any product.
We could be
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:16:43PM -0500, Joshua Slive wrote:
This could also be part of a press release announcing 2.2. Just between
Brian and Colm we could have a couple impressive-sounding quotes.
+1 great idea! Making it known that the 2.2GA has been stress tested at
high profile sites
--On November 29, 2005 3:15:05 PM -0500 Brian Akins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would this be a worthwhile ApacheCon topic? (I'm already angling to get a
speakers spot for next year.) We do some interesting things here :) For
Absolutely.
the time being, for a web page, I could discuss some
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Sure. FWIW, most people only care about generalities not any specifics.
We don't need to have specifics. Stuff like Just under 1 billion
requests here is spot-on. =) -- justin
Cool. I have asked my SVP what is acceptable for me to say. But it
doesn't take a
Brian Akins wrote:
This is probably way off topic for this list. I was searching for
something related to php this morning (I know, I know... But some
people here need php) and the majority of the google hits where FUD
sites. Most of them generally say Apache is bloated and slow, you
should
--On November 29, 2005 3:40:11 PM -0500 Paul A Houle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* prefork and worker seem to be about equally fast on linux?
Yup - this is because forking and threading are equivalent (by and large)
on Linux.
* is the case on Solaris?
No. The threading gains of worker
Paul A Houle wrote:
Don't make it a fudbusting site, make it a apache performance
tuning site.
There are all of these statements in the apache docs that
* .htaccess is slow
* ExtendedStatus on reduces performance
We did a round of performance testing on a server that we
Joshua Slive wrote:
Suggestions to improve
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.1/misc/perf-tuning.html
are very welcome. Suggestions backed by data are even better.
Basically there's nothing quantitative there. There's a lot of talk
about some operating systems and not a lot of talk about
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
If it's on equivalent hardware (i.e. Linux/Intel vs. Solaris/Intel on
the same box), I doubt there will be an extreme performance gap. In
fact, I've often seen Solaris outperform Linux on certain types of
loads. In my experience, a lot of Linux network card
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 20:49, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On November 29, 2005 3:40:11 PM -0500 Paul A Houle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* prefork and worker seem to be about equally fast on linux?
Yup - this is because forking and threading are equivalent (by and large)
on Linux.
That's
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:18:57PM -0500, Brian Akins wrote:
I know that a press release is out of the question for my company. We
do not endorse or disparage any product.
That's understandable, for a news organisation. For our part, HEAnet has
no problem being quoted, but maybe something
Paul A Houle wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
If it's on equivalent hardware (i.e. Linux/Intel vs. Solaris/Intel on
the same box), I doubt there will be an extreme performance gap. In
fact, I've often seen Solaris outperform Linux on certain types of
loads. In my experience, a lot of Linux
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 21:28, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:18:57PM -0500, Brian Akins wrote:
I know that a press release is out of the question for my company. We
do not endorse or disparage any product.
That's understandable, for a news organisation. For our
On 11/29/2005 04:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Can you try HEAD on httpd-trunk for a fix until something
more robust as far as the connections are implemented...
Just for convenience:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349723view=rev
Has someone found out out why we close the connection if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: brianp
Date: Sun Nov 27 18:56:47 2005
New Revision: 349348
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349348view=rev
Log:
More refactoring of ap_read_request() in preparation for
nonblocking read support.
WARNING: The code for handlng requests that exceed the
On 11/29/2005 01:27 PM, Matthias Behrens wrote:
hi everyone
i am new to this list.
since there is no faq available i simple post my request and see what happens.
sorry if i miss any rule.
i have a apache 2.0 in loadbalncing mode using mod_rewrite and mod_proxy.
there have allways
Hi.
Geoff:
hmm, that's a good point. t/conf/extra.conf.in only
affects php tests
that
run inside the server, such as
t/response/TestAPI/foo.php.
Nope. My test is in the t/response/TestPHP/
Chris:
You might try getting rid of the conditional
statement, just to see if
that's the problem.
On 11/29/2005 11:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jerenkrantz
Date: Tue Nov 29 14:23:30 2005
New Revision: 349819
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349819view=rev
Log:
Now that the branch (but not a release just yet!) has gone GA, copy the blurb
from 2.0's STATUS about the
I'm not near my windows box, and the universal inability of any search
engine to allow me to search for the literal string $MAKE is geting to
me.
Does anyone know exactly which is correct;
$MAKE
or
($MAKE)
I can reverse engineer the answer tomorrow, but it's
--On November 29, 2005 11:32:53 PM +0100 Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Does this mean we switch from CTR to RTC on the 2.2.x branch just now?
Yup. (The exceptions for 2.0.x also apply to 2.2.x too.) -- justin
On 11/29/2005 11:38 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On November 29, 2005 11:32:53 PM +0100 Ruediger Pluem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean we switch from CTR to RTC on the 2.2.x branch just now?
Yup. (The exceptions for 2.0.x also apply to 2.2.x too.) -- justin
Sorry for the
--On November 29, 2005 11:56:03 PM +0100 Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sorry for the stupid question. What exceptions?
Documentation and single-maintainer platforms can be changed with CTR.
Everything else needs 3 +1s prior to merging. -- justin
On 11/30/2005 12:00 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On November 29, 2005 11:56:03 PM +0100 Ruediger Pluem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the stupid question. What exceptions?
Documentation and single-maintainer platforms can be changed with CTR.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:36:31PM +, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
I can reverse engineer the answer tomorrow, but it's still annoying me
now. It looks to me, and some others, like the latter would evaluate to
(NMAKE) and yet when I made the change it got rid of the syntax error,
and it looked
+1 on Mac OS.
-wsv
On Nov 28, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
