At 12:11 PM 3/24/2007, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't want to propose a bunch of tiny changes like this,
but I'm looking towards a possible review of mod_dav.
Meanwhile, anyone BTDT and have insights to share?
What is BTDT? -- justin
Been There, Done That
At 08:33 AM 2/14/2007, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 2/14/07, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This proposed list of requirements for a 3.0 platform. this list
enables
a 'base' level of performance and design decisions to be made. If
others
can make designs work with 'lessor' requirements, all
At 07:56 AM 11/2/2006, Ivan Ristic wrote:
BTW, what's a round tuit? :)
It's a play on words:
I'll do it when I get around to it - I'll do it when I get a
round tuit
If you don't have enough round tuits, you don't have the time to do
something.
At 01:41 PM 10/27/2006, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
And when you have a file backend, you want to hit your disk cache
and
not the backend when delivering data to a client. People might
think
that this doesn't matter, but for large files, especially larger
than
RAM in your
At 10:39 AM 3/20/2006, Sander Temme wrote:
On Mar 20, 2006, at 12:26 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
What do you, the httpd dev community, think of:
1) the concept?
This kind of thing is definitely overdue - tomcat has had this for
ages.
2) the attached implementation?
At 12:52 PM 8/4/2005, Paul A Houle wrote:
(2) This particular system has a production and a test instance, so
I'd love to have a way to set variables that I can interpolate into
arbitrary strings. For instance, everything connected with the
production system may be under
This already
At 11:34 AM 7/1/2005, Rian A Hunter wrote:
Quoting Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Rian Hunter wrote:
type misc_smtp_handler(request_rec *r) {
smtpd_request_rec *smtp_data;
if (strncmp(http, r-protocol_name, 4)) {
// decline to handle, this module doesn't handle
At 10:42 AM 6/17/2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Checkout date/time is generally the right choice for developers,
because otherwise make doesn't always pick up when a file has
changed. (I've been bit by the Visual SourceSafe modification
time default enough times.)
Although - heh - you
At 11:23 AM 3/18/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I absolutely refuse to punish users who are using good OSes because
some OSes are brain-dead. This is exactly the role that APR is
meant to fill
Feel free to advocate Linux always returning APR_ENOTIMPL for
sendfile - I don't care. However,
At 07:20 AM 9/23/2004, Mladen Turk wrote:
Is there any reason why apr, apr-util, httpd mailing lists have
Reply-To header set to the sender and not to the list itself. I
think almost all other lists has the 'Replay-To' header set to the
list itself. I mean, I'm receiving the messages from the
At 06:53 PM 9/10/2004, Jean-Jacques Clar wrote:
I replaced the cleanup field with a bit set in refcount. This is
done to prevent race conditions when refcount is accessed on two
different threads/CPUS.
+#define OBJECT_CLEANUP_BIT 0x00F0
0x00F0 isn't a bit, it's 4 bits: 0x0010 |
At 10:50 PM 7/15/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I agree, here, with Joe. Wondering if it's an appropriate
alternative.
I'm facing similar, with a subproject entering incubation, and I'd
like to know our decision here, before I go and create a subproject
structure under /httpd/ that turns
At 12:33 PM 6/11/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The proper logic to add to a cache is
wrlock
test if exists again
add element
unlock
because there is a race condition in the logic below
rdlock
test if the element exists
race is here, prior to wrlocking, another thread may
wrlock-insert
At 10:18 PM 6/8/2004, Rici Lake wrote:
The patch is now posted to bugzilla as [Bug 29450]. I believe that
conforms to the patches.html document cited below. Although that
document says -C3 is acceptable, I have submitted it in the
preferential -u format (which I also prefer, actually).
It says
At 09:09 AM 3/4/2004, Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 05:49:52PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ake 2004/03/01 09:49:52
Modified:.libhttpd.dsp
Log:
add eoc_bucket.c to project
I'm not qualified to review Win32 changes but did you mean to remove
At 12:00 PM 3/4/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 09:55 AM 3/4/2004, Greg Marr wrote:
/incremental:no is the default, and MSDev will at times remove
flags that it finds redundant, even ones that it added
itself. It's a bit schizophrenic like that.
uh wrong. with /debug incremental yes
At 01:33 PM 3/4/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 12:04 PM 3/4/2004, Greg Marr wrote:
At 12:00 PM 3/4/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 09:55 AM 3/4/2004, Greg Marr wrote:
/incremental:no is the default, and MSDev will at times remove
flags that it finds redundant, even ones that it added
At 10:22 AM 2/5/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, Will.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 03:39 PM 2/4/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then if I play devil's advocate, someone could see the new directive
and turn it on when it's not appropriate and cause Bad Things to
not
+ *be unlikely to be in use anywhere else.
should not likely be in use or should be unlikely to be in use
+pIf none if configured a sensible, but not particular
s/if/is/
s/particular/particularly/
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:21:04 -0500
Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:12:20PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you... or do you mean just have
Apache 1.3 APR aware and not for 1.3 to *use* it per se,
but allow for modules to call APR... That would be
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:45:25 -0700
Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:15:35 -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote
-1. I'm still of the mind that _every_ release should be
recreatable.
Anything we put out there is going to be at least perceived as
official,
and we should take
I found some time to look for existing discussions on this...
(should have done that earlier)... It isn't valid to send
Set-Cookie on a 304.
It is not valid to set a cookie in a 304 response. Please see
section 10.3.5 of RFC2616. That is the reason Apache explictly
lists headers that will be
?
mod_cache.c: In function `cache_in_filter':
mod_cache.c:543: warning: format argument is not a pointer (arg 3)
Oooh, yowtch... good call. I wasn't even looking at that part.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
you've allocated for the
module. If it module is larger than that size, a warning will be
issued at link time.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 19:24:22 -0400
Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm +1 for creating 2.1 and 2.2 trees as proposed by Bill.
My one thought about this proposal is that it is unclear whether or
not this is attempting to emulate the Perl versioning scheme. If so,
then it's backwards,
, and that
until this is fixed, users should not use any of the threaded models
in Apache 2.0, and recommend use of the non-threaded models.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/patches.html
Under Submitting your patch, the first sentence still refers to the
old mailing list: If you are a subscriber to new-httpd,
;
+/* Add X-Forwarded-Host: so that upstream knows what the
+ * original request hostname was.
+ */
+if ((buf - ap_table_get(r-headers_in, Host))) {
I think this should be buf = instead of buf -.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:45:03PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
slive 02/05/23 11:45:02
...
+pDo not download from www.apache.org. Please use a mirror site
+ to help use save apache.org bandwidth.
should that be help us save?
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you
in the COPYCMD environment
variable. WinNT's xcopy ignores this, but Win2K's will pick it up.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
, but I'm a little clumsy with
gpg.)
If you key isn't already in the KEYS file, you can't release those
binaries.
Uh, why not? As long as the key is in the KEYS file before the
binaries are posted, what difference does it make when it was added?
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought
that don't exist. That is a standard system error message
from using LoadLibrary to load a DLL when a required dependency
doesn't exist.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
be trying to verify it.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
for the same resource in the
access log, with large numbers of them getting 500 instead of 200.
Shouldn't these be 503 Service Unavailable instead of just a plain 500?
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
convention is used to call Win32 API functions.
The callee cleans the stack, so the compiler makes vararg functions
__cdecl.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
loading in the first place, since it is
linked against a function that doesn't exist. The breaking of binary
compatibility in this case is at the link layer.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
,
M_POST, -1);
Weren't these method numbers recently removed so that there are no
standard methods, and all the methods are added the same way at run
time?
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
HTTP methods, the old macros
were kept. ... they are gauranteed to have the same value as the
constant though.
Ah, I missed that part of it. Thanks.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
and put it in its own repository for the same reasons I want to
keep mod_gz out.
Why not just put them in modules/experimental? Isn't that what it's
for?
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We thought you were dead.
I was, but I'm better now. - Sheridan, The Summoning
At 06:19 PM 09/03/2001, Graham Leggett wrote:
Greg Marr wrote:
How exactly do you use Cache-Control directives so that the
content that
is cached is before includes are processed, and that when it is
retrieved from the cache, the includes are processed? It just
doesn't
work that way
Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Marr wrote:
In Ian's particular case, that is incorrect. The value of his
includes vary from request to request, so he needs the cache to
be before the includes filter.
This isn't necessary - simply use the Cache-Control directives
43 matches
Mail list logo
