On 7/14/10 17:14 , Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/14/10 17:00 , Andreas Jung wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>>> I don't mind doing this for a SERVER_NAME in the response, but looking
>>> at the diff from the commit email you also changed the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/14/10 17:00 , Andreas Jung wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> I don't mind doing this for a SERVER_NAME in the response, but looking
>> at the diff from the commit email you also changed the startup message
>> from Zope 2 with this change. Tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I don't mind doing this for a SERVER_NAME in the response, but looking
> at the diff from the commit email you also changed the startup message
> from Zope 2 with this change. That is the bit I find problematic: I want
> t
On 7/14/10 16:43 , Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/14/10 16:28 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> On 7/14/10 16:19 , Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> Log message for revision 114741:
>>> - LP #143533: Instead of showing "0.0.0.0" as server name when no
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/14/10 16:28 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 7/14/10 16:19 , Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> Log message for revision 114741:
>>- LP #143533: Instead of showing "0.0.0.0" as server name when no
>> specific listening IP is configured for the HTTP s
On 7/14/10 16:19 , Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Log message for revision 114741:
>- LP #143533: Instead of showing "0.0.0.0" as server name when no
> specific listening IP is configured for the HTTP server, do a
> socket lookup to show the current server's fully qualified name.
Can I obje
