Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 19:38, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
>>Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
>>
>>>Finally got around implementing Apache::PerlSections->(dump|store);
>>>
>>>Comments ?
>>
>>freeze/thaw?
>
>
> What do you mean? Use Storable to dump the data out? I could impl
On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 19:38, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> > Finally got around implementing Apache::PerlSections->(dump|store);
> >
> > Comments ?
>
> freeze/thaw?
What do you mean? Use Storable to dump the data out? I could implement
that quite easily, just trying to ke
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> Finally got around implementing Apache::PerlSections->(dump|store);
>
> Comments ?
freeze/thaw?
other than that, I'll need to give it a whirl :)
--Geoff
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECT
> This is exactly what I was talking about. Making it configurable at
> startup time.
:)
actually, once I got it figured out, it's probably possible to support
per-dir hook ordering as well, but I don't think it's valuable enough to
warrant additonal effort. but it's possible ;)
> I don't know
On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 09:17, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> hi all
>
> ok, I spent some time and was able to get configuration-based dynamic hook
> ordering working.
Great!
> the attached patch adds a PerlHook*Handler directive for each request phase
> (minus the PerlResponseHandler). so, you would ha
Finally got around implementing Apache::PerlSections->(dump|store);
Comments ?
Index: lib/Apache/PerlSections.pm
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/modperl-2.0/lib/Apache/PerlSections.pm,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -I$Id -r1.2 PerlSection
>> the whole idea of static C variables/structs and threaded mpms really,
>> really confuses me. but I guess it doesn't matter, since it's not a
>> per-request thing and all this happens before ap_mpm_run is called
>> anyway.
>
>
> You don't have any threads till the child_init phase, so there
Geoffrey Young wrote:
+/* we need to hook a few internal things before APR_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST */
+#define MODPERL_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST (-20)
The name is confusing, since APR_REALLY_FIRST is -10 and you kept the
rest of the MODPERL_HOOK_ names matching . Call it REALLY_REALLY_FIRST?
or anything else w
>> +/* we need to hook a few internal things before APR_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST */
>> +#define MODPERL_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST (-20)
>
>
> The name is confusing, since APR_REALLY_FIRST is -10 and you kept the
> rest of the MODPERL_HOOK_ names matching . Call it REALLY_REALLY_FIRST?
> or anything else which
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all
ok, I spent some time and was able to get configuration-based dynamic hook
ordering working.
the attached patch adds a PerlHook*Handler directive for each request phase
(minus the PerlResponseHandler). so, you would have a configuration like this
PerlHookTransHandle
Geoffrey Young wrote:
I think filter_init handler is the perfect place to add it
keep in mind that filter_init does not propagate the return value of the
function properly - it may not apply to what you want to do, but just in
case. see some comments in modperl_run_filter_init for more details.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
geoff 2004/02/27 06:06:40
Modified:xs/tables/current/Apache ConstantsTable.pm
Log:
remove deprecated constant so 2.1 builds - see revision 1.32
Revision ChangesPath
1.37 +0 -1 modperl-2.0/xs/tables/current/Apache/ConstantsTable.pm
Stas Bekman wrote:
> I've tried to add an output connection filter from the input connection
> filter when it was called for the first time. It didn't have any affect
> for the first request (over keepalive connection). The only way I
> succeeded to do that is from that input connection filter's
hi all
ok, I spent some time and was able to get configuration-based dynamic hook
ordering working.
the attached patch adds a PerlHook*Handler directive for each request phase
(minus the PerlResponseHandler). so, you would have a configuration like this
PerlHookTransHandler Last
valid values
Steve Hay wrote:
[...]
I've just tried Apache/2.0.48 now, and that doesn't seem to have the
problem -- i.e. "apache.exe -DAPACHE2 -X" does do single process mode.
A bug in Apache/1.3.29, maybe?
That's strange, may be ask at httpd-dev?
OK, that wasn't strictly true, as I've now found that Apache
Randy Kobes wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>
>>Steve Hay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I've just tried out Apache-Test 1.08 (on Win32) and noticed that when I
>>>ran its test suite with Apache 1.3.29 I was left with an Apache.exe
>>>process running afterwards.
>>>
>>>I thin
Stas Bekman wrote:
>Steve Hay wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I've just tried out Apache-Test 1.08 (on Win32) and noticed that when I
>>ran its test suite with Apache 1.3.29 I was left with an Apache.exe
>>process running afterwards.
>>
>>I think I've seen this happen before, but never got round to look
17 matches
Mail list logo
