I considered the previous proposal might be a bit abstract one, so
it leads people confusion to find out what should be suggested.
I would like to focus more tangible issues at first, to gather
attention and have a fruitful discussion. :-)
The purpose of my proposition is to launch
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Kaspar Brand
Gesendet: Montag, 30. März 2009 18:15
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: SNI in 2.2.x (Re: Time for 2.2.10?)
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Going through the archive I noticed several attachments
with the same
basename and and a
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I have essentially finished mod_remoteip at this point and am looking
to find out the interest level of adopting this as a core module into
trunk (modules/metadata/ appears to be the most appropriate target)?
+1.
I had to code up a similar feature recently in
Lars Eilebrecht l...@eilebrecht.net writes:
Torsten Foertsch wrote:
[mod_include DATE_LOCAL bug]
Is this a known bug?
It's probably this one:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39369
I think that's right. It's a test for Joe's fix for 39369, that has
only been applied to
On Wed 01 Apr 2009, Dan Poirier wrote:
Lars Eilebrecht l...@eilebrecht.net writes:
Torsten Foertsch wrote:
[mod_include DATE_LOCAL bug]
Is this a known bug?
It's probably this one:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39369
I think that's right. It's a test for
Hello.
ap_http_header_filter (AP_FTYPE_PROTOCOL) sometimes executed before my
AP_FTYPE_CONTENT_SET filter.
Any clue how that can happen?
As a result, my output header in not added.
2.2.10
--
Marko Kevac
On Fri 20 Mar 2009, Graham Leggett wrote:
Torsten Foertsch wrote:
I need the include virtual directive to be able to issue POST
requests. It should pass the request body to the subrequest. So I
came up with the attached patch.
It allows to write
!--#include method=post virtual=...
Torsten Foertsch wrote:
I did and, frankly, it is not the solution I was looking for. One has to
define a max. body size to be kept. The body is kept in RAM which can
be a problem unless KeptBodySize is rather small. So I developed my
patch further.
It defers now the ap_discard_request_body
Graham Leggett wrote:
(Having not yet had a chance to look at the code) How is the possibility
of multiple IPs in the same header handled, eg:
X-Fowarded-For: 10.2.3.4, 10.11.12.13
I think you'll find your question is answered in the README I referenced.
It's handled fine. The interesting
-Original Message-
From: Paul Querna [mailto:p...@querna.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:54 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: d...@apr.apache.org; Jonathan Leighton; Preethi Natarajan
(prenatar)
Subject: Re: HTTP over SCTP
Please post the patches, preferablly against
Torsten Foertsch torsten.foert...@gmx.net writes:
On Wed 01 Apr 2009, Dan Poirier wrote:
Lars Eilebrecht l...@eilebrecht.net writes:
Torsten Foertsch wrote:
[mod_include DATE_LOCAL bug]
Is this a known bug?
It's probably this one:
On Wed 01 Apr 2009, Graham Leggett wrote:
Is there a chance for the patch to make it into 2.3++? If yes I'll
merge it with the KEPT_BODY stuff.
Having two separate mechanisms to solve the same problem is not
ideal. In addition, creating a solution that only works in one place
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
A question regarding your patch:
@@ -427,29 +435,26 @@ int ssl_hook_Access(request_rec *r)
* function and not by OpenSSL internally (and our function is aware of
* both the per-server and per-directory contexts). So we cannot ask
* OpenSSL
13 matches
Mail list logo
