William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If the user must rewrite their content handlers to pay attention to
thread
jumps, and must use some sort of yeild beyond
apr_socket_poll/select(), then
I'd agree it becomes 3.0.
I wouldn't worry about protocol/mpm authors, who are a breed to ourselves
and should
Paul A Houle wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If the user must rewrite their content handlers to pay attention to
thread
jumps, and must use some sort of yeild beyond
apr_socket_poll/select(), then
I'd agree it becomes 3.0.
I wouldn't worry about protocol/mpm authors, who are a breed to
Yo dude, while the community may not catch/catch up with press, if we
planned to 'announce' Apache 2.2 as an httpd splash at the convention
opening plenary, this sort of just deep sixed that - since I'm pretty
sure most convention attendees follow [EMAIL PROTECTED], those who are httpd
users. Oh
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Yo dude, while the community may not catch/catch up with press, if we
planned to 'announce' Apache 2.2 as an httpd splash at the convention
opening plenary, this sort of just deep sixed that - since I'm pretty
sure most convention attendees follow [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Known Issues
Some non-showstopping issues were found during the 2.2.0 release
and testing cycle:
* mod_dbd and mod_authn_dbd are absent from the Windows build
environment. A patch to correct this is available from:
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.2.0/
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Query; you let the mirrors catch up 24 hours, right? Or you just decided
to burn the extra ASF bandwidth?
It appears so; I've just cleaned up all the 2.1 turds left behind, but it will
take the daily -full- rsync in order for those files to disappear from the
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I still don't
understand the reason for such a rushed release, when
an extra few days would likely have resolved them...
Because it's httpd-dev tradition, .0 releases are never ready, and most
RM's live to regret them, yet new
Paul Querna wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Oh - why to users@ and not [EMAIL PROTECTED] (announce@apache.org, as
well as [EMAIL PROTECTED], as after all this is big news.)
I have sent it to both of those. It is still waiting moderation.
users@httpd.apache.org is the only one that I
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
++1! On to 2.4 :)
you mean X right? :)
Seriously though, will the inclusion of all the async stuff warrant a
jump to 3.0?
--
Brian Akins
Lead Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies
Brian Akins wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Seriously though, will the inclusion of all the async stuff warrant a
jump to 3.0?
My 2c CA (yes, I have 2 of them sitting here)...
If the user can write a content handling module that ignores threading and
remains on-thread, then it's a 2.4
Brian Akins wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
++1! On to 2.4 :)
you mean X right? :)
How about dropping numbers totally and using
colors?
Apache HTTP Server Green
:)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I still don't
understand the reason for such a rushed release, when
an extra few days would likely have resolved them...
Because it's httpd-dev tradition, .0 releases are never ready, and most
12 matches
Mail list logo
