Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9066A102DE for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 13:33:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 65360 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jan 2014 13:33:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 64497 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jan 2014 13:33:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 64479 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jan 2014 13:33:29 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 13:33:29 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [76.96.30.80] (HELO qmta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.30.80) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 13:33:24 +0000 Received: from omta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.35]) by qmta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id BpW21n0030lTkoCA8pZ4CX; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 13:33:04 +0000 Received: from [192.168.199.10] ([69.251.80.74]) by omta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id BpZ21n0081cCKD98QpZ3Yd; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 13:33:04 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb... From: Jim Jagielski In-Reply-To: <20140109002933.74e2b1c8@hub> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:33:01 -0500 Cc: httpd Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <3449F4CE-42B7-4729-B66F-6AB8A8590E2C@jaguNET.com> <52CAF331.3090009@primary.net> <98E1350C-16ED-488A-ABBE-B6F54C51011A@jaguNET.com> <20140109002933.74e2b1c8@hub> To: "William A. Rowe Jr." X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1389274384; bh=LfAMXCNPaIq2QOVWHufbtMDKoPl8JdACmJa1osg7coc=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To; b=sPAsbiqanrTPmMg2LzJus+obgLEMcTcMZ/3OcPkIC71XZKy9I0Tv0vqsIGlTBGTvU 45fLha69vDBODVqevOge6azy9RP5iAqgwFhaczmYSt7C2L4/mXJQLXQPqe2ao733QK WOWLzSQt5sD1Q3yUbcIeCW8Kjfn9JuKu6oE3xxv1zwCLYKmjg1bdHHofaxH6S+/LnN wYiK9qDcrLuxOPiDBNqrCBc4ceE5VFLgbzZYfKPAfMJgajKc/lNMEFIl6GNSf7ogac TnAS2mEzFcKi/FBDAm+pp/SAv1uqcuelTSeqslYLVcvOvGOuXUqHSpN1oaaU7Kfv4K y64ijaPWC+iWg== X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org "defect"? We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite. Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect". If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite, then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any reason to not include it where we say it is, and where we see it works. On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500 > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr wrote: >>> >>> So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being >>> valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) >>> at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly: >>> >> >> Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy, >> and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and >> currently isn't supported. >> >> I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;) > > No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into > a release branch. > > Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag? > Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users? >