Core Vote (Re: mod_python 3.2.9 available for testing)
Web Server forum
Back To The Forum Home!Search!Private Messaging System

Web Server Talk Web Server Talk > Web Servers reviews > Apache Server configuration support > Apache Mod-Python > Core Vote (Re: mod_python 3.2.9 available for testing)




  Last Thread   Next Thread Next
  Show Printable Version Email this Page Subscribe to this Thread      Post New Thread    Post A Reply      

    Core Vote (Re: mod_python 3.2.9 available for testing)  
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy


View Ip Address Report This Message To A Moderator Edit/Delete Message


 
07-31-06 06:12 AM


Sorry for the late response - I was trying to have a "vacation" - that's
when you are geographically in a different place with slow internet access
and read only "some" of your e-mail.... ;-)

+1 for core vote (with the note about the 2.2.2 XP SP2 issue).

Grisha

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Graham Dumpleton wrote:

>
> On 08/07/2006, at 4:26 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
> 
>
> The issue with server cleanups failing and why is covered by:
>
>  http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-109
> 
>






[ Post a follow-up to this message ]



    Re: Core Vote (Re: mod_python 3.2.9 available for testing)  
Jim Gallacher


View Ip Address Report This Message To A Moderator Edit/Delete Message


 
07-31-06 12:12 PM

We decided to fix the memory leak in parse_qsl and move on to 3.2.10,
which has been tested and currently has +3 core votes. All we need now
is the official release. One of these days I'll sort out my GPG keys so
I can sign these things myself but in the mean time we'll need your
help, Grisha.

Main 3.2.10 feature is Apache 2.2 support, plus bug fixes.

Tarball and Win binaries are here:

http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/dist/
http://nicolas.lehuen.com/download/mod_python/

Jim

Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> Sorry for the late response - I was trying to have a "vacation" - that's
> when you are geographically in a different place with slow internet
> access and read only "some" of your e-mail.... ;-)
>
> +1 for core vote (with the note about the 2.2.2 XP SP2 issue).
>
> Grisha
>
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> 
>







[ Post a follow-up to this message ]



    Re: Core Vote (Re: mod_python 3.2.9 available for testing)  
Nicolas Lehuen


View Ip Address Report This Message To A Moderator Edit/Delete Message


 
07-31-06 12:12 PM

Note that the problem with Apache 2.2 on Windows XP SP2 seems to have
disappeared, though I can't see how this is possible, unless Graham fixed
something .

The problem was more probably due to an Apache 2.2 setup glitch.

Regards,
Nicolas

2006/7/31, Jim Gallacher <jpg@jgassociates.ca>:
>
> We decided to fix the memory leak in parse_qsl and move on to 3.2.10,
> which has been tested and currently has +3 core votes. All we need now
> is the official release. One of these days I'll sort out my GPG keys so
> I can sign these things myself but in the mean time we'll need your
> help, Grisha.
>
> Main 3.2.10 feature is Apache 2.2 support, plus bug fixes.
>
> Tarball and Win binaries are here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/dist/
> http://nicolas.lehuen.com/download/mod_python/
>
> Jim
>
> Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: 
> 2.4.3 
> test_srv_register_cleanup 
> you 
> by 
> me 
> each 
> the 
> in 
> to 
>
>






[ Post a follow-up to this message ]



    Re: Core Vote (Re: mod_python 3.2.9 available for testing)  
Graham Dumpleton


View Ip Address Report This Message To A Moderator Edit/Delete Message


 
08-01-06 12:12 AM

Nicolas Lehuen wrote ..
> Note that the problem with Apache 2.2 on Windows XP SP2 seems to have
> disappeared, though I can't see how this is possible, unless Graham fixed
> something .
>
> The problem was more probably due to an Apache 2.2 setup glitch.

Not necessarily a glitch. The whole problem with the registration of server
cleanup functions was that whether it would cause a problem/hang/crash
was random. It just depended on what the Apache child process was doing
at the time the signal came from the parent process to shut it down. In
some respects the Win32 platform would have fared a bit better than UNIX
as on Win32 a signal handler is actually executed as a distinct thread where
as on UNIX it just suspends all running code and then blindly executes the
signal handler code.

We still need to disable the server cleanup execution, it just has too much
potential for problems.

Graham
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Regards,
> Nicolas
>
> 2006/7/31, Jim Gallacher <jpg@jgassociates.ca>: 
> so 
> I 
> a 
> well 
> (and 
> not 
> if 
> in 






[ Post a follow-up to this message ]



    Sponsored Links  




 





   All times are GMT. The time now is 08:23 AM.      Post New Thread    Post A Reply      
  Last Thread   Next Thread Next


Most Popular forums 

Forum Jump:
Rate This Thread:

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is OFF
 
Medical and Health forum | Computer Games Reviews | Graphics design forum

Back To The Top
Home | Usercp | Faq | Register