At 06:22 20.03.2003, Jean-Michel Dault wrote:
Le lun 17/03/2003 à 20:14, Mike Robinson a écrit :
> FWIW, I'v been doing some light testing here, and writing
> some ab stuff to put some load on it, but at first blush
> apache 2.0.44 and 4.3.2RC1 seems terribly sluggish,
> particularly with the gd s
Le lun 17/03/2003 à 20:14, Mike Robinson a écrit :
> FWIW, I'v been doing some light testing here, and writing
> some ab stuff to put some load on it, but at first blush
> apache 2.0.44 and 4.3.2RC1 seems terribly sluggish,
> particularly with the gd stuff. This could very well be
> my fault.
>
>
Jean-Michel Dault wrote
> Le ven 14/03/2003 à 21:14, Jani Taskinen a écrit :
>> Someone requested that we leave the apache2filter there
>> for now..for some reason he didn't explain and I really
>> didn't care. :)
>It was me, and I did explain that apache2handler had
> serious bugs i
Le ven 14/03/2003 à 21:14, Jani Taskinen a écrit :
> Someone requested that we leave the apache2filter there
> for now..for some reason he didn't explain and I really
> didn't care. :)
It was me, and I did explain that apache2handler had serious bugs in the
previous versions. My reason
Jani Taskinen wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Mike Robinson wrote:
> >Did it in fact make it in, and included in the 4.3.2RC1 release?
>
> Yes. It "replaced" sapi/apache2filter:
>
> --with-apxs2 enables now apache2handler.
>
> Someone requested that we leave the apache2filt
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Mike Robinson wrote:
>I'm curious as to what the status is of the fixed apache2handler
>stuff that was discussed regarding whether or not to include it
>in the 4.3 tree. I was under the impression that despite some
>reluctance to include it (because it was new), it was decided
I'm curious as to what the status is of the fixed apache2handler
stuff that was discussed regarding whether or not to include it
in the 4.3 tree. I was under the impression that despite some
reluctance to include it (because it was new), it was decided to
include it because it was actually a fix.
