Hello.
In our package in Mandriva I patch mod_python.c so that the mutex stuff is put
in /var/cache/httpd/mod_python/. But now with mod_python-3.2.7 plus fixes
from the trunk and running the test suite it complains it cannot access
/var/cache/httpd/mod_python/ (of course). So my
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-111?page=comments#action_12366331
]
Sebastjan Trepca commented on MODPYTHON-111:
OK, I understand and agree with your but then someone should change the
documentation because now it says:
A
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-111?page=all ]
Sebastjan Trepca updated MODPYTHON-111:
---
Component: documentation
Sessions don't set accessed time on read
Key: MODPYTHON-111
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
I wonder if we should generalize this, so rather than PythonMutexDir, we have
PythonModuleConfig. Usage might look like:
PythonModuleConfig mutex_dir /path/to/mutexs
PythonModuleConfig max_mutex_locks 8
I may be wrong, but I think the reason this
Based on today's traffic on the mailing lists, I think that we should
go for a short-term 3.2.8 release of mod_python, with certified Apache
2.2 support on multiple platforms. The code is only there but I
suppose we'll need a lot of testing, so maybe we could expect to
release this in a month or
2006/2/14, Nicolas Lehuen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Based on today's traffic on the mailing lists, I think that we should
go for a short-term 3.2.8 release of mod_python, with certified Apache
2.2 support on multiple platforms. The code is only there but I
suppose we'll need a lot of testing, so
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Based on today's traffic on the mailing lists, I think that we should
go for a short-term 3.2.8 release of mod_python, with certified Apache
2.2 support on multiple platforms. The code is only there but I
suppose we'll need a lot of testing, so maybe we could expect to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
2006/2/14, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
If we want to go down the path of having interim 3.2 bug rollup releases
while 3.3 is being developed, might I suggest that we target the following
for such a release in the near future.
Hi,
I've built Apache 2.2 and tested mod_python SVN trunk with it.
The two register_cleanup tests fail. Apparently it's because the test
code registers a cleanup function giving the current request as
parameter. Of course when the cleanup function is called, the request
object is no longer
[note: x-posted to modperl]
[note: i sent this earlier from an unsubscribed address. that
shouldn't go through. if it does, apologies in advance ]
I wrote a web services module to incorporate the TrackBack protocol
into my mod_perl application
I started testing it using WordPress - the
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 12:02:24AM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 02/13/2006 04:37 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 08:57:14PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This change (I think) is triggering the bad pool ancestry abort() in the
tables code: the proxy tests in the test
On 2/12/06, Brian Pane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to return different values for EAGAIN and please do a poll on
readability for me vs. EAGAIN and please do a poll on writability
for me. The connection state logic in the event MPM assumes
that an EAGAIN result from an input filter means poll for
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 2/12/06, Brian Pane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to return different values for EAGAIN and please do a poll on
readability for me vs. EAGAIN and please do a poll on writability
for me. The connection state logic in the event MPM assumes
that an EAGAIN result from an
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:42:27PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
On 2/13/2006 at 8:39:41 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:26:39AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Yes, we do need to make this change. With the provider based
rearchitecting
On Feb 13, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Then we should either find out or adjust it to the behaviour
that we think is correct as the current behaviour doesn't seem to be.
This looks to be an almost direct port from mod_jk, but I
agree that the current behavior is quite strange :)
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
On Feb 13, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Although it's not really documented anyplace, it really is
good practice for people who submit large changes to run
That seems a reasonable good idea.
them through the
Oden Eriksson wrote:
Hello.
In our package in Mandriva I patch mod_python.c so that the mutex stuff is put
in /var/cache/httpd/mod_python/. But now with mod_python-3.2.7 plus fixes
from the trunk and running the test suite it complains it cannot access
/var/cache/httpd/mod_python/ (of
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-111?page=comments#action_12366333
]
Jim Gallacher commented on MODPYTHON-111:
-
I'll update the documentation.
Sessions don't set accessed time on read
tisdagen den 14 februari 2006 14.19 skrev Jim Gallacher:
Oden Eriksson wrote:
Hello.
In our package in Mandriva I patch mod_python.c so that the mutex stuff
is put in /var/cache/httpd/mod_python/. But now with mod_python-3.2.7
plus fixes from the trunk and running the test suite it
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote:
Currently I am away from my developing environment, but as soon
as I get there (tonight German time) I will sent an updated version.
Thanks in advance for running the tests.
Anytime! :)
I'm currently trying to trace through exactly how
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
I'm currently trying to trace through exactly how the code is
trying to pool connections. Of course, we're only using
reslist if we're a threaded MPM...
Really? I thought APR_HAS_THREADS is set when the OS supports threads.
I thought
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote:
-Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
I'm currently trying to trace through exactly how the code is=20
trying to pool connections. Of course, we're only using=20
reslist if we're a threaded MPM...
Really? I
Off the top of my head, I have no idea why we even have lb_score
rather than just using proxy_worker_stat as we should.
This is easy to fix except for the fact that ap_get_scoreboard_lb()
is AP_DECLARE... Of course, adjusting in HEAD is fine, but
this is something that really should be fixed in
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Yeah, but we check to see if we're 1 thread, so in prefork,
we drop to single connection workers.
Which makes sense to me. Why have more than one connection per worker
on a prefork processes that can only handle one request at a
On Tuesday 14 February 2006 15:06, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Off the top of my head, I have no idea why we even have lb_score
Neither have I. Someone slipped it it; noone objected.
rather than just using proxy_worker_stat as we should.
This is easy to fix except for the fact that
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Off the top of my head, I have no idea why we even have lb_score
rather than just using proxy_worker_stat as we should.
This is easy to fix except for the fact that ap_get_scoreboard_lb()
is AP_DECLARE... Of course, adjusting in
I am trying to recompile some modules from Apache 2.0 to use under 2.2.0,
and get the following:
In file included from /usr/local/apache2/include/ap_config.h:25,
from /usr/local/apache2/include/httpd.h:43,
from mod_rexx.h:72,
from mod_rexx.c:25:
I've noticed in a few places where what is shared and what
is not (ie: local to the worker struct within the child
process) are confused.
In my mind, ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share() should
worry about things that are (possibly) shared,
and thus worker-s entries. It should also be
checking
Von: Jim Jagielski=20
=20
=20
Off the top of my head, I have no idea why we even have lb_score
rather than just using proxy_worker_stat as we should.
This is easy to fix except for the fact that ap_get_scoreboard_lb()
is AP_DECLARE... Of course, adjusting in HEAD is fine, but
this is
Hi --
Does anyone have any advice? Does this seem like a problem
to be addressed? I tried to think through how one could signal
the poll()ing worker threads with pthread_kill(), but it seems
to me that not only would you have to have a signal handler
in the worker threads (not hard),
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
quite right, since it means that the *shared* data
has been initialized, but that this worker may not
have been (if you catch my drift). Furthermore,
this means that the -cp stuff isn't being
fully init'ed...
Yep, see
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
That was the reason I added the 'context' struct member, to
allow for some reasonable extensions without adjusting the
actual API. :)
Yes, but it is not possible to share this data over processes
easily as it is only a pointer.
Nick Kew wrote:
I haven't thought this through yet, but presumably we could implement
an API for this. Something like:
struct worker_score {
/* all the stuff that's there now */
void data[]; /* at the end */
};
/* ditto other records */
:)
I did this awhile ago on all the
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote:
-Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski=20
=20
=20
Yeah, but we check to see if we're 1 thread, so in prefork,
we drop to single connection workers.
Which makes sense to me.
To me too. What it's doing is
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote:
-Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski=20
=20
=20
That was the reason I added the 'context' struct member, to=20
allow for some reasonable extensions without adjusting the=20
actual API. :)
Yes, but it is not
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Yes, but it is not possible to share this data over
processes easily
as it is only a pointer.
But it could be a pointer to a shared memory segment :)
Yes of course, but I have to write more code to manage this
than for an
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
I haven't thought this through yet, but presumably we could implement
an API for this. Something like:
struct worker_score {
/* all the stuff that's there now */
void data[]; /* at the end */
};
/* ditto other records */
:)
I did this awhile
Oden Eriksson wrote:
tisdagen den 14 februari 2006 14.19 skrev Jim Gallacher:
Oden Eriksson wrote:
Hello.
In our package in Mandriva I patch mod_python.c so that the mutex stuff
is put in /var/cache/httpd/mod_python/. But now with mod_python-3.2.7
plus fixes from the trunk and running the
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote:
-Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski=20
=20
Yes, but it is not possible to share this data over=20
processes easily=20
as it is only a pointer.
=20
But it could be a pointer to a shared memory segment :)
Hello all--I'm sure this has been a subject of ongoing discussion; but
could someone perhaps fill me in on the timeline for adding mod_python
support for Apache 2.2.0? I just put together mod_python 3.2.7 and
Apache 2.2.0 with Python 2.4.2, and it doesn't really work. Any clues
why not, or ideas
On 2/14/2006 at 3:50 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:42:27PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
The other problem that I see in the configuration is that the
Location
/authany defines an authtype and authname but no authentication
provider.
On Feb 13, 2006, at 1:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Currently I work on PR 38602 (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/
show_bug.cgi?id=38602).
First of all the reporter is correct that we do not sent the
Connection: Keep-Alive
header on our HTTP/1.1 keep-alive
On 2/14/06, System Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to recompile some modules from Apache 2.0 to use under 2.2.0,
and get the following:
In file included from /usr/local/apache2/include/ap_config.h:25,
from /usr/local/apache2/include/httpd.h:43,
On 15/02/2006, at 5:07 AM, alex eh wrote:
Hello all--I'm sure this has been a subject of ongoing discussion; but
could someone perhaps fill me in on the timeline for adding mod_python
support for Apache 2.2.0? I just put together mod_python 3.2.7 and
Apache 2.2.0 with Python 2.4.2, and it
Jim Jagielski wrote:
To a backend http/1.0 server, connection: close is meaningless (and
wrong).
IIRC, http/1.0 lacks any Connection header at all.
connection: keep-alive was a transitional http/1.0 behavior.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
To a backend http/1.0 server, connection: close is meaningless (and
wrong).
IIRC, http/1.0 lacks any Connection header at all.
connection: keep-alive was a transitional http/1.0 behavior.
Yes, but not formal 1.0. (rfc1945)
--
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
On 15/02/2006, at 5:07 AM, alex eh wrote:
Hello all--I'm sure this has been a subject of ongoing discussion; but
could someone perhaps fill me in on the timeline for adding mod_python
support for Apache 2.2.0? I just put together mod_python 3.2.7 and
Apache 2.2.0 with
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm currently trying to trace through exactly how the code is trying
to pool connections.
If someone produces a good patch, I have some traffic I can throw at it :)
--
Brian Akins
Lead Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies
On 02/14/2006 01:51 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
since it really does help track some things down... In the
meantime, if you can send the latest patch, I'll test
it here.
Please find attached
Changes to the previous one:
1. Diff against r377821.
2. I removed the !backend check also.
I
I'll test tomorrow morning... Heading out early today
for Valentine's Day :)
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--020401000706000306050001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 02/14/2006 01:51 PM, Jim
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 02/14/2006 01:51 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
since it really does help track some things down... In the
meantime, if you can send the latest patch, I'll test
it here.
Please find attached
Changes to the previous one:
1. Diff
On 02/14/2006 10:48 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
I am curious about the test results.
No regressions...
Good. Thanks for testing that fast, even on Valentine's Day :).
Regards
Rüdiger
52 matches
Mail list logo
