On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's section 8.2.3 of RFC2616. But anyway, I don't see why
> use the early keyword.
As mentioned earlier, I'm not actually using mod_headers or the early
keyword at all, I was using it to demonstrate the issue with
mod_prox
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:00:56 -0400
"Tom Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe it's not a bug, but it certainly is inconsistent - and certainly
> something has has changed between the versions - so I wanted to
> highlight this.
You're right. Sorry if I came across a bit grumpy.
Anyway, I thi
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:50:00 -0400
> "Tom Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The "early" keyword exists to help developers simulate
> a request, for example when debugging a new module.
> Perhaps it should've remained undo
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:50:00 -0400
"Tom Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ServerName munchkin.synthesis.co.za
> Header add Set-Cookie "MOD_PROXY_FOOD=FOO;" early
Why?
The "early" keyword exists to help developers simulate
a request, for example when debugging a new module.
Perhaps it shou
Hi Group
I'm fairly confident I've found a bug in mod_proxy in Apache 2.2.9 but
would like your opinion before I log anything to the bug tracker. It's
something I discovered while working in mod_python, but I've managed
to get it occurring with a bare-bones Apache 2.2.9 setup using only
mod_proxy
