[Of course this message doesn't make a whole lot of sense on [EMAIL PROTECTED],
reposting]
AFAIK - we were simply holding on apr[-util] 0.9 to be baked. Vote is
in-progress on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (in case you weren't watching that list - it
might
interest you to follow the low-level discussions
Hi,
As of now, we can not make requests without having actual
connection(conn_rec) to the server.
For example, mod-cache-requester needs to make request for popular and
soon-to-expire from cache pages so that these pages are reloaded in
the cache. right now, it has to rely on libcurl to
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:26:39AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll RM a
tarball once that vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] flies. Speak now if there are
issues :)
I don't know if it's implicit or not, but we shouldn't bundle
On Monday 27 March 2006 11:07, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want feedback
from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-) Or maybe
there's a subdomain or two running 2.0 still?
Huh? Who's talking about downgrading?
--
Nick
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:21:46AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
On Monday 27 March 2006 11:07, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want feedback
from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-) Or maybe
there's a subdomain or two running
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:31:36AM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Until now, we've always had 3 days of 2.0 in production on ASF hardware
before going GA, and I'm wondering if we now treat 2.0 like 1.3 and not
do this on apache.org, or we politely ask infra to try out the candidate
(I don't
On Mar 23, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VIS wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
I want to be able to use same balancer in multiple vhosts.
This is actually that way by design, iirc. I've no
real issues with it being Vhost specific or inheritable.
So if
On Mar 27, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Brian Akins wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Something like this maybe? Of course, since it's inherited,
the balancer shows up twice in the balancer-manager, but
maybe that make sense :)
Shouldn't it just appear once? That's just my thinking...
Well, there
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Well, there *are* 2 balancers... but yeah, it is quite
confusing, and there are things that need to be
further addressed here.
I'm think of what if someone had a script that parses the
balancer-manager output. it would be very confusing to figure out which
is the
Brian Akins wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Well, there *are* 2 balancers... but yeah, it is quite
confusing, and there are things that need to be
further addressed here.
I'm think of what if someone had a script that parses the
balancer-manager output. it would be very confusing to
Jim Jagielski wrote:
When each Vhost is merged, they
grab a copy of the main server's balancer config setup.
So you have 2 balancers, one of which isn't used at
all (the main server's) and one that is.
my very silly global_balancers patch fixes that.
--
Brian Akins
Lead Systems Engineer
Brian Akins wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
When each Vhost is merged, they
grab a copy of the main server's balancer config setup.
So you have 2 balancers, one of which isn't used at
all (the main server's) and one that is.
my very silly global_balancers patch fixes that.
Yes,
Can any one assit me with were I can find an example filter module, code or
website. That will assit me with creating a filter module that filters the
context comming from a client machince. I have some users that I provide
internet service to and I want to avoid them from sending spam out
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:26:39AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll RM a
tarball once that vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] flies. Speak now if there are
issues :)
I don't know if it's implicit or not,
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:46:05PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll
RM a tarball once that vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] flies. Speak now if there
are issues :)
I don't know if it's implicit or not, but we shouldn't bundle
On 03/27/2006 05:15 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VIS wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
I want to be able to use same balancer in multiple vhosts.
This is actually that way by design, iirc. I've no
real issues with
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Proxy balancer://fill
BalancerMember http://server1:80 route=server1
BalancerMember http://server2:80 route=server2
/Proxy
VirtualHost A
...
ProxyPass /path balancer://fill/ stickysession=Sticky
/VirtualHost
VirtualHost B
...
ProxyPass /path
On Mar 27, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Proxy balancer://fill
BalancerMember http://server1:80 route=server1
BalancerMember http://server2:80 route=server2
/Proxy
VirtualHost A
...
ProxyPass /path balancer://fill/ stickysession=Sticky
/VirtualHost
VirtualHost
Brian Akins wrote:
I want them to share the balancer. Currently, they do not fully.
Or have I confused my self...
Nah, I understand perfectly :)
VHosts should have access to any balancer defined at the
main server level. I think we're all in agreement here.
The issue is whether vhosts
On 03/27/2006 10:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
What we needed to avoid was the case where a balancer defined in
VhostA leaked into VhostB. You should not be able to define
balancers in one Vhost and have them available in others; it's
That makes things clearer to me. Thanks. BTW: I agree
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 03/27/2006 10:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
What we needed to avoid was the case where a balancer defined in
VhostA leaked into VhostB. You should not be able to define
balancers in one Vhost and have them available in others; it's
That makes things
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
to do here.
Ok, but this actually works already without your patch.
I never even bothered to check... Brian's initial
Email said that it didn't. Are you saying that his Email
is wrong and that balancers defined in the main
22 matches
Mail list logo
