>; Mon Feb 9 02:20:19 2004
Received: from cmanolache by adsl-63-202-82-219.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net with local
(Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon Feb 9 02:20:19 2004
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Co
NormW wrote:
Good morning All.
The fact that the row (without even a 'name' value) appears in the URI
runtime table in /jkstatus suggests that it must be an object (bean?) of
type 'uri' because that is a requirement of the loop. Hence something is
permitting the creation of an unitialised uri objec
Good morning All.
The fact that the row (without even a 'name' value) appears in the URI
runtime table in /jkstatus suggests that it must be an object (bean?) of
type 'uri' because that is a requirement of the loop. Hence something is
permitting the creation of an unitialised uri object [zero perha
Günter Knauf a écrit :
Hi all,
no comments yet to this??
Guenter.
in mod_jk2, if invoked by the /jkstatus page,
jk2_worker_status_displayRuntimeType() displays always a nameless /
useless first line below the uri runtime info;
I'm asking me what entry that vould be, and if it is the right way to
Hi all,
no comments yet to this??
Guenter.
> in mod_jk2, if invoked by the /jkstatus page,
> jk2_worker_status_displayRuntimeType() displays always a nameless /
> useless first line below the uri runtime info;
> I'm asking me what entry that vould be, and if it is the right way to
> suppress displ
Hi all,
in mod_jk2, if invoked by the /jkstatus page, jk2_worker_status_displayRuntimeType()
displays always a nameless / useless first line below the uri runtime info;
I'm asking me what entry that vould be, and if it is the right way to suppress
displaying it, or dig for what it is?
can perhaps
