On 8/20/07, Vincent Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And further, it's probably not worth it to do so as you can just
filter the logs during processing, or during the logging by using a
piped logger.
On 21.08.07 11:02, Brian Munroe wrote:
That is the solution I am looking into. Thanks for
On 9/1/07, Matus UHLAR - fantomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what's the point? 304 is understood as a hit, the same as 200, but the
content is not resent to client, because client already has it.
Just trying to reduce the size of access.logs. It isn't a big deal,
but I just thought that it
On 8/20/07, Vincent Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And further, it's probably not worth it to do so as you can just
filter the logs during processing, or during the logging by using a
piped logger.
That is the solution I am looking into. Thanks for the confirmation.
-- brian
Just wanted to make sure I was reading the httpd documentation
correctly. There is no way to use conditional logging to drop 304
HTTP status codes, right?
Anyone have a solution they'd like to share?
thanks
-- brian
-
The
On 21/08/07, Brian Munroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wanted to make sure I was reading the httpd documentation
correctly. There is no way to use conditional logging to drop 304
HTTP status codes, right?
Anyone have a solution they'd like to share?
I can't think of one. I'd like to be
On 21/08/07, Vincent Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/08/07, Brian Munroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wanted to make sure I was reading the httpd documentation
correctly. There is no way to use conditional logging to drop 304
HTTP status codes, right?
Anyone have a solution they'd
