Mailing-List: contact bugs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache HTTPD Bugs Notification List" <bugs@httpd.apache.org>
Date: 3 Jul 2002 12:35:30 -0000
Message-ID: <20020703123530.26422.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: bugs@httpd.apache.org
Cc: 
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 10408]  -
    ISAPI issue with 2.0.39 for Win32

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10408>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10408

ISAPI issue with 2.0.39 for Win32


------- Additional Comments From bbukovics@radiantsystems.com  2002-07-03 12:35 -------
Thanks for your help.  Yes, the "ISAPIFakeAsync on" appears to have solved my 
problem, although I have some additional stress testing I want to do.  

My question at this point is should I go ahead and use this un-documented 
directive now in a production environment with 2.0.39, or is it safer to wait 
for an upcoming build where this has had some time to stabalize?  I know that's 
probably not a fair question, but I'm looking for your opinion on the relative 
stablity of the rewritten mod_isapi in 2.0.39.

Thanks again for your help.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org