Hi,
We are getting the following error when we compiled the mod_cache on the
unix server and try to load the same.
httpd: Syntax error on line 147 of /usr/local/apache/conf/httpd.conf:
Can't locate API module structure `cache_module' in file
/usr/local/apache/modules/mod_cache.so:
/usr/loca
On 26-03-2012 16:41, brainbuz wrote:
mod_gatekeeper sounds like it does exactly what I was looking for I
will try it.
I took the liberty of taking this example one step further, implementing
it into the mod_auth group so you can use it within a Require block. The
module in its current form
On Mar 26, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Téssio Fechine wrote:
> Hello,
> I am learning apache, and the ironic part is that reading the apache
> documentation on acl reinforced my doubt in this matter.
>
> In this part:
> In the following example, all hosts in the apache.org domain are allowed
> access; a
Dear All,
I am trying to create a java web application in which the authentication
part should be handled purely by apache http server.
On opening the front page of the application, the content should be served
from the http server which should have a form for accepting username and
password.
T
mod_gatekeeper sounds like it does exactly what I was looking for I
will try it.
On 2012-03-26 03:00, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On
25-03-2012 00:12, JohnKarr wrote:
>
>> I hadn't want to mention what I
was thinking of doing as an alternative, because I really hoped that
there was a better answ
Thanks Tom..
Ahh.. that makes it even more efficient; since the symmetric key is the
only one required for encryption/decryption.
Moreover, this symmetric key is only known to the client and the server.
Thanks
Thanks and Regards,
Ajay
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> O
I've always believed the second-thing-is-the-default is not
intuitive/obvious and people don't like to depend on it -- they just
want to choose the order of evaluation which has obvious use cases
either direction.
-
To unsubscribe
2012/3/26 Téssio Fechine :
>
>> Not at all; you are right that that stanza is equivalent to
>> "Order
>> Allow,Deny", but the behaviour after adding an additional
>> Allow is
>> different.
>>
>> There isn't one right or wrong way, you just have to
>> understand that
>> there are two ways, and what
> Not at all; you are right that that stanza is equivalent to
> "Order
> Allow,Deny", but the behaviour after adding an additional
> Allow is
> different.
>
> There isn't one right or wrong way, you just have to
> understand that
> there are two ways, and what the differences are.
>
> Cheers
>
2012/3/26 Téssio Fechine :
> So, constructions like that:
>
> Order Deny,Allow (allow by default)
> Deny from all (deny everything)
>
> are indeed kind of pointless, right? Nonetheless it's the most used form,
> even in the official documentation.
>
Not at all; you are right that that stan
> De: Tom Evans
> Assunto: Re: [users@httpd] Question About ACL
> Para: users@httpd.apache.org
> Data: Segunda-feira, 26 de Março de 2012, 8:19
> 2012/3/26 Téssio Fechine
> >
> > Hello,
> > I am learning apache, and the ironic part is that
> reading the apache
> > documentation on acl reinforce
2012/3/26 Téssio Fechine
>
> Hello,
> I am learning apache, and the ironic part is that reading the apache
> documentation on acl reinforced my doubt in this matter.
>
> In this part:
> In the following example, all hosts in the apache.org domain are allowed
> access; all other hosts are denied ac
Hello,
I am learning apache, and the ironic part is that reading the apache
documentation on acl reinforced my doubt in this matter.
In this part:
In the following example, all hosts in the apache.org domain are allowed
access; all other hosts are denied access.
Order Deny,Allow
Deny from all
A
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Ajay Garg wrote:
> Thanks a ton Sander.
>
> So on session setup-phase, the server sends the public-key to the client
> (which would hardly be a bother, even if it is intercepted by a
> eavesdropper). This public key is then used to encrypt the data on the
> client
Thanks a ton Sander.
So on session setup-phase, the server sends the public-key to the client
(which would hardly be a bother, even if it is intercepted by a
eavesdropper). This public key is then used to encrypt the data on the
client, send over the wire, and decrypted by the server's private key
On 22.03.12 21:59, Adrian Gschwend wrote:
> I'm more than happy to run more tests if someone has some ideas, I ran
> out of them.
As no one seems to have an idea on that one, what would be the next
logical step to escalate it? devel mailing list?
thanks
Adrian
--
Adrian Gschwend
@ netlabs.org
Hi,
Thanks for your help.
The problem was on my side (of course): I apparently had forgotten to
enable mod_proxy_http, next to mod_proxy on my production server.
Enabling mod_proxy_http solved the issue.
Kind regards,
Ron
On 26 Mar 2012, at 08:00, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> It's still only early Monday morning - perhaps some wiz kid will wake up and
> give the right answer soon.
I think yours looks like the right answer: it's a requirement that hasn't really
hit the mainstream, so I'm stumped for a non-hackish answer
On 25-03-2012 00:12, John Karr wrote:
I hadn't want to mention what I was thinking of doing as an
alternative, because I really hoped that there was a better answer
that I had failed to read/find the documentation on!
My two solutions in mind were (a) the application that maintains the
ip l
19 matches
Mail list logo
