Writing an Apache module

["P. Dwayne Miller" <dm...@espgroup.net>]

Where do I find docs on how to do this?  My initial target environment 
will be WinNT/2K.

TIA

Re: Win95 fails the Apache 2.0 beta

[Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>]

The code is in mpm_winnt.c to work on 9*/ME.  Just needs to be debugged. Shouldn't require
a whole lot of work but I am not doing it :-)

Bill

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, jlwpc1 wrote:
>
> > Windows 95 B (FAT32)
> >
> > Guess no one on this list has a Windows
> > 95 close by - I don't know why not!  :)
>
> I believe we've said we're not going to support Win9x/ME at WinNT/2K/XP's
> expense, right?  We've been saying for quite some to expect that Win9x/ME
> would be broken.  I suppose we could have made that more clear in the
> Announcement...
>
> --Cliff
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>    Cliff Woolley
>    cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
>    Charlottesville, VA
>
>

Re: Win95 fails the Apache 2.0 beta

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>]

From: "Cliff Woolley" <cl...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:57 PM


> I believe we've said we're not going to support Win9x/ME at WinNT/2K/XP's
> expense, right?  

Well, we simply didn't actively develop on 9x.  Most of us have other 
priorities, like optimizing around an OS with a security model and some 
reasonable amount of process isolation.  The other aspect is choice of OS...
around here only the kids' games get booted into 9x, and then with the
network card crippled.

That doesn't mean we've dropped 9x, that means it is (literally) an
afterthought, that we hope some users will find useful at GA.

> We've been saying for quite some to expect that Win9x/ME
> would be broken.  I suppose we could have made that more clear in the 
> Announcement...

Did we drop that?  Oh bother... well, read the big red warning at
http://httpd.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/  :)

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, jlwpc1 wrote:
> 
> > Windows 95 B (FAT32)
> > 
> > Guess no one on this list has a Windows 
> > 95 close by - I don't know why not!  :)

Or perhaps none of us bother to boot that partition too often.

In any case, this specific issue aught to be fixed, more surprizes 
to be discovered sometime soon ;)  We already have an additional
sockets WSAENOTSUPPORTED bug out there to track down for 9x.

By the time (shortly, I hope) that 2.0 is ready to put to bed, those
folks interested in 9x will have piped up with their patches to clean up
backwards compatibility to the 9x mpm.

Bill

Re: Win95 fails the Apache 2.0 beta

[Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, jlwpc1 wrote:

> Windows 95 B (FAT32)
> 
> Guess no one on this list has a Windows 
> 95 close by - I don't know why not!  :)

I believe we've said we're not going to support Win9x/ME at WinNT/2K/XP's
expense, right?  We've been saying for quite some to expect that Win9x/ME
would be broken.  I suppose we could have made that more clear in the 
Announcement...

--Cliff

--------------------------------------------------------------
   Cliff Woolley
   cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
   Charlottesville, VA

Win95 fails the Apache 2.0 beta

[jlwpc1 <jl...@mail.earthlink.net>]

FYI

Windows 95 B (FAT32)

D:\ap20\Apache2\bin>start apache -k start
A device attached to the system is not functioning.

An error dialog pops up:
Error Starting Program

The LIBAPR.DLL file is linked to missing export
KERNEL32.DLL:GetFileAttributesExA

Seems GetFileAttributesExA OSes are:

 Windows NT: Requires version 4.0 or later.
 Windows: Requires Windows 98 or later.
 Windows CE: Unsupported.

Seems Windows 95 uses 
GetFileAttributes only:

Windows 95:
The lpFileName string must not 
exceed MAX_PATH characters.
Windows 95 does not support 
the "\\?\" prefix.

Guess no one on this list has a Windows 
95 close by - I don't know why not!  :)

JLW