httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>
Subject Re: February 1997 Netcraft Web Server Survey (fwd)
Date Thu, 06 Feb 1997 23:40:31 GMT
Actually stopped applying after the changes to buff.c which is where
the meat of the SSL changes are. The changes that seemed to have this
effect were the chunked encoding changes. SSL changes have been applied,
but I have apparently missed something.

I need to devote some time to it....


> My patch for better name-vhost support would need a tweak under SSL since
> it included a "http://" constant (just cloning code around it though :). 
> 
> Dean
> 
> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Randy Terbush wrote:
> 
> > > On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Can we get a timeline for 1.2b7 then?  A lot has gone into it already.

> > > > I'd like to say roll it sunday feb 9, but there's a lot of outstanding
> > > > patches still needing voting.  I'd really like to see my performance
> > > > patches in 1.2b7 because they need wide enough testing before release.
> > > > 
> > > > Do we want 1.2b7 to be a release candidate?
> > > 
> > > I think so, but I really don't think we are ready for it yet.  You have
> > > looked at the list of problems.  If nothing comes up before I get to it, I
> > > hope to have something to help the hanging on HUP problem on the weekend.
> > 
> > I agree that we aren't ready. I have not been much help this round
> > but hope to get a shot at some things over the weekend. 
> > 
> > I also would like to move Dean's patches to my live server, but
> > unfortunately (after applying the patches and porting changes to
> > support SSL) I have a case where the writes are to stderr.... ??
> > I hope to get a chance to figure this out over the weekend....
> > 
> > > There are lots of other things that should be fixed too.  The bug-fixing
> > > has been going very well over the past few betas, so I think it is worth
> > > following up on it.  
> > 
> > Agreed, but I would personally like to see us put this thing behind
> > us in the next week if possible.
> > 
> > > > At any rate we are fighting a losing battle here, every "review" in a
> > > > magazine shows MS or NS "light years" ahead of us in all categories. 
We
> > > > also don't have an NT port... and more and more sites coming online are
> > > > going to be run off NT gateways running Microsoft's internet tools...
> > > > because they're a "no-brainer".  They are the borg. 
> > > 
> > > Guess why they are "light years" ahead?  They have a pretty clicky
> > > interface and fun toys that aren't "the web server" itself.  Apache never
> > > has been for morons.   A pretty config interface wouldn't hurt though.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 




Mime
View raw message