Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: what bothers me about -D is that, the more I think about it, we're using -D in a way neither intended by core nor used by other modules. -D is specifically for containers, while using -D in this way has little do to with that. Not really, -D is used for many other things i

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Geoffrey Young
>> what bothers me about -D is that, the more I think about it, we're >> using -D >> in a way neither intended by core nor used by other modules. -D is >> specifically for containers, while using -D in this way has >> little do to with that. > > > Not really, -D is used for many other things in

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Stas Bekman
well, the problem with changing the source is that modperl_hooks.c is autogenerated - they'd need to know to alter ModPerl::Code, which is kinda less intuitive unless you're one of us :) right, I haven't thought of that, but only looked at modperl_register_hooks in mod_perl.c what bothers me abo

Re: compatibility issue on internal_redirect

2004-02-20 Thread Stefan Traby
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:23:57PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote: Thanks for addressing this issue. I've tested current cvs and it worked. > Stas Bekman wrote: > [...] > >>>But you don't explain what you mean by a crippled STDOUT. > > > >[...] > > > >>--- internal_redirect.pm.orig 2004-02-11 19:43:4

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Geoffrey Young
>> anyway, I'm not entirely convinced that -D switches are the way to go >> with >> this (imagine the jumble trying to shift just a few phases), but it's >> something to chew on over the weekend :) > > > I'd think that the majority of the users won't need that feature. I agree > Those > few wh

Re: [Patch mp2] Better solution for Apache-Test on IPv6 boxes

2004-02-20 Thread Stas Bekman
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote: This is a followup on my previous patch to attempt and solve the problems people are having with Apache-Test on boxes with IPv6 and no support for ipv4-mapped addresses in httpd. Instead of hard-coding 127.0.0.1 in the listen directive, this patch uses the servername ins

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Stas Bekman
I wonder whether one really has to call the hooks registration from modperl_register_hooks. May be it's possible to postpone the ap_hooks calls until after the startup phase is over (let's say postconfig). In which case we could provide extended config directives to do the configuration. __

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: httpd -DTRANS_REALLY_LAST -DRESPONSE_REALLY_FIRST [...] anyway, I'm not entirely convinced that -D switches are the way to go with this (imagine the jumble trying to shift just a few phases), but it's something to chew on over the weekend :) I'd think that the majority of the

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: I don't think it's impossible, but I think it will be hard - we'd basically need to change the nOrder value in the each hook structure at some point then call apr_hook_sort_* manually. I might be able to do this when some directive is parsed or it may need to be a request-tim

[Patch mp2] Better solution for Apache-Test on IPv6 boxes

2004-02-20 Thread Philippe M. Chiasson
This is a followup on my previous patch to attempt and solve the problems people are having with Apache-Test on boxes with IPv6 and no support for ipv4-mapped addresses in httpd. Instead of hard-coding 127.0.0.1 in the listen directive, this patch uses the servername instead. The original problem

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Geoffrey Young
>>httpd -DTRANS_REALLY_LAST -DRESPONSE_REALLY_FIRST >> >>etc... >> >>so it would be neither a compile time option, nor a configuration >>option, but a program define. well this was the harder of the two (compile time vs configure time) to implement, so I started with it :) attached is a rough pa

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Geoffrey Young
>> I don't think it's impossible, but I think it will be hard - we'd >> basically >> need to change the nOrder value in the each hook structure at some point >> then call apr_hook_sort_* manually. I might be able to do this when some >> directive is parsed or it may need to be a request-time oper

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Geoffrey Young
> Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like such a problem. If I > make my own module DSO in C and I add the hook when the module loads > (LoadModule) for TransHandler, and I'm using compiled-in mod_proxy, I'll > have the same issue. Frankly, even if they're both compiled in, I > po

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: [...] Making it a startup configuration should be possible, IMO. Only if that turns out to be impossible, I'd make it a compile-time option. I don't think it's impossible, but I think it will be hard - we'd basically need to change the nOrder value in the each hook structure

Re: request hook ordering

2004-02-20 Thread Issac Goldstand
- Original Message - From: "Stas Bekman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Geoffrey Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Geoffrey Young wrote: > > I've brought it up before, but it looks like users are having real problems > > with the way 2.0 hooks modules into the request phases. > > > > in 1.0, modul