You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Iikka Meriläinen <Ii...@pato.vaala.fi> on 2002/12/13 21:58:17 UTC
[PATCH][RESEND] windows.xml rewrite
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I was just wondering if someone has had time/willingness/knowledge etc. to
review my rewrite work on windows.xml? The most recent patch is attached to
this message. Simply put: is the patch worth committing? I personally think
it makes the topic clearer... :-)
Iikka
========================================
Iikka Meril�inen
Vaala, Finland
E-mail: Iikka.Merilainen@pato.vaala.fi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9+knvCVGYZ+r4ZncRAgSgAKCpu7NXHa5tqguIu5R38OpGInJJggCeIZoS
A5QLeWq6ceC795oVeoUkX30=
=9IdM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [PATCH][RESEND] windows.xml rewrite
Posted by Astrid Kessler <ke...@kess-net.de>.
> Thanks! The obscurity of the original documents was one reason for
> this rewrite effort. My first Apache installations on Windows were a
> lot less than successful, and then there were these docs to find help
> from. Whoa... not an experience I'd like to live again.
Hehe, yes, I remember my first attempt with virtual hosts. It was a
nightmare.
Well, your rewritten document is also much easier to translate into
german then some other documents containing multiple nested sentences
which have to be cut into two or more in german. Sometimes really a hard
work.
>> 4)
>> If you don't specify a configuration file with -f or -n, Apache
>> will use the file name compiled into the server, such as
>> conf\httpd.conf, relative to the path specified by the ServerRoot
>> directive.
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something. But the sentence is mistakable. One
>> could read: the configuration file is relative to the ServerRoot
>> directive. This could never be because the configuration file must be
>> found and read before apache is able to notice the ServerRoot
>> directive.
>
> Yes, this sentence was strange indeed. Actually it's almost ridiculous
> when I read it afterwards! Please see the reworked version - might be
> SLIGHTLY better. ;-)
>
> I assume the hardcored configuration file path is relative to the
> Apache.exe startup folder. Am I correct on this?
>
eh, no. The file path is relative to the installation directory. With 1.3
Apache.exe was stored directly in the installation directory. With 2.0
Apache.exe has been moved to the subfolder bin.
I changed this little sentence and commited your work.
> I attached a patch for sitemap.xml which removes the now-obsolete
> win_service.xml link. The file on CVS is also not needed any more - I
> don't know how that'll be handled.
It's also done. Thank you.
Kess
Re: [PATCH][RESEND] windows.xml rewrite
Posted by Iikka Meriläinen <Ii...@pato.vaala.fi>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Astrid Kessler wrote:
> It's very easy to read. Nice work.
Thanks! The obscurity of the original documents was one reason for this
rewrite effort. My first Apache installations on Windows were a lot less
than successful, and then there were these docs to find help from. Whoa...
not an experience I'd like to live again.
> Section "Customizing Apache for Windows":
>
> 1)
> ... See the Apache documentation for all the available directives.
> -> ... See the directive index for all the available directives.
>
> and link directly to this file.
Fixed. Hope the link is correct.
> Section "Running Apache as a service":
>
> 2)
> <p>By default, all Apache services are registered to run as user
> <code>System</code> (the LocalSystem account). The <code>System
> </code> account has no privileges to your network via any
> Windows-secured mechanism, including the file system, named pipes,
> DCOM, or secure RPC. It has, however, wide privileges locally.</p>
>
> Do note mark "system" as code, because the account name is not "System" but
> "LocalSystem". Ok, this is only a little markup issue. Probaly you want to
> write:
>
> -> <p>By default, all Apache services are registered to run as system
> user (the <code>LocalSystem</code> account). The <code>LocalSystem
> </code> account has no privileges to your network via any
> Windows-secured mechanism, including the file system, named pipes,
> DCOM, or secure RPC. It has, however, wide privileges locally.</p>
Right. Modified this one, too.
> Section "Running Apache as a Consol� Application":
>
> 3)
> You can also run Apache via the shortcut Start Apache in Console placed
> to Start Menu --> Programs --> Apache HTTP Server 2.0.xx --> Control
> Apache Server during the installation. This will open a console window
> and start Apache inside it. The window will remain visible until you
> stop Apache.
>
> The Windows stays open only if Apache is not installed as a service.
> Otherwise this menu entry starts the service and closes the console window.
> (Tested on Windows 2000)
I reworked this paragraph a bit. Maybe this new version is better.
> 4)
> If you don't specify a configuration file with -f or -n, Apache will
> use the file name compiled into the server, such as conf\httpd.conf,
> relative to the path specified by the ServerRoot directive.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something. But the sentence is mistakable. One could
> read: the configuration file is relative to the ServerRoot directive. This
> could never be because the configuration file must be found and read before
> apache is able to notice the ServerRoot directive.
Yes, this sentence was strange indeed. Actually it's almost ridiculous when
I read it afterwards! Please see the reworked version - might be SLIGHTLY
better. ;-)
I assume the hardcored configuration file path is relative to the Apache.exe
startup folder. Am I correct on this?
> 5) You are often using <li><p>....</p></li>. Is this intended? Imho <li>...
> </li> is also ok.
They are two different things, actually. But you're right, there were
unneeded <p>'s around. With <p>'s you get a separation from another <li>'s,
which was needed in some cases. I removed some <p>'s, and the result seems
to be clearer.
> Section "Testing the Installation":
>
> 6)
> After starting Apache (either in a console window or as a service) it
> will be listening on port 80 (unless you changed the Listen directive in
> the configuration files).
>
> -> After starting Apache (either in a console window or as a service) it
> will be listening on port 80 (unless you changed the Listen directive in
> the configuration files or installed apache only for the current user).
Changed this too.
I have little to add at this point. Seems to be pretty ready for
committing.
I attached a patch for sitemap.xml which removes the now-obsolete
win_service.xml link. The file on CVS is also not needed any more - I don't
know how that'll be handled.
Iikka
========================================
Iikka Meril�inen
Vaala, Finland
E-mail: Iikka.Merilainen@pato.vaala.fi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9+6VrCVGYZ+r4ZncRAqkhAJ4i4WFmGQb6PvLDGxbDskzJ5NVJzgCglk2b
VxhnGm3V8QuIvIm1uXC4IkY=
=4KJq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [PATCH][RESEND] windows.xml rewrite
Posted by Astrid Kessler <ke...@kess-net.de>.
> Oh darn... but here comes a diff between two Unix versions of the
> file. :-)
It's very easy to read. Nice work.
I've only some small suggestions. Could you check them and send a further
patch? I'll commit this if Bill Rowe or others have no further comments.
Section "Customizing Apache for Windows":
1)
... See the Apache documentation for all the available directives.
-> ... See the directive index for all the available directives.
and link directly to this file.
Section "Running Apache as a service":
2)
<p>By default, all Apache services are registered to run as user
<code>System</code> (the LocalSystem account). The <code>System
</code> account has no privileges to your network via any
Windows-secured mechanism, including the file system, named pipes,
DCOM, or secure RPC. It has, however, wide privileges locally.</p>
Do note mark "system" as code, because the account name is not "System" but
"LocalSystem". Ok, this is only a little markup issue. Probaly you want to
write:
-> <p>By default, all Apache services are registered to run as system
user (the <code>LocalSystem</code> account). The <code>LocalSystem
</code> account has no privileges to your network via any
Windows-secured mechanism, including the file system, named pipes,
DCOM, or secure RPC. It has, however, wide privileges locally.</p>
Section "Running Apache as a Consolê Application":
3)
You can also run Apache via the shortcut Start Apache in Console placed
to Start Menu --> Programs --> Apache HTTP Server 2.0.xx --> Control
Apache Server during the installation. This will open a console window
and start Apache inside it. The window will remain visible until you
stop Apache.
The Windows stays open only if Apache is not installed as a service.
Otherwise this menu entry starts the service and closes the console window.
(Tested on Windows 2000)
4)
If you don't specify a configuration file with -f or -n, Apache will
use the file name compiled into the server, such as conf\httpd.conf,
relative to the path specified by the ServerRoot directive.
Maybe I'm missing something. But the sentence is mistakable. One could
read: the configuration file is relative to the ServerRoot directive. This
could never be because the configuration file must be found and read before
apache is able to notice the ServerRoot directive.
5) You are often using <li><p>....</p></li>. Is this intended? Imho <li>...
</li> is also ok.
Section "Testing the Installation":
6)
After starting Apache (either in a console window or as a service) it
will be listening on port 80 (unless you changed the Listen directive in
the configuration files).
-> After starting Apache (either in a console window or as a service) it
will be listening on port 80 (unless you changed the Listen directive in
the configuration files or installed apache only for the current user).
Re: [PATCH][RESEND] windows.xml rewrite
Posted by Astrid Kessler <ke...@kess-net.de>.
Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> wrote in
news:Pine.WNT.4.50.0212131607150.800-100000@Poste3947:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Iikka Meriläinen wrote:
>> I was just wondering if someone has had time/willingness/knowledge
>> etc. to review my rewrite work on windows.xml? The most recent patch
>> is attached to this message. Simply put: is the patch worth
>> committing? I personally think it makes the topic clearer... :-)
I'm already on it, but haven't finished yet. Give me another day please :)
However, I'm not sure about Win 9x and I can't test this. But everything
sounds nice I've read till now.
> One issue: Your editor seems to have converted from Unix to DOS
> line-endings, resulting in a massive diff (every line differs by at
> least the line-ending). Is there any way you can fix that?
>
> Otherwise, whomever goes to commit it can fix it. It just might slow
> down the review process.
I'll do it for this patch.
Kess
Re: [PATCH][RESEND] windows.xml rewrite
Posted by Iikka Meriläinen <Ii...@pato.vaala.fi>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
> One issue: Your editor seems to have converted from Unix to DOS
> line-endings, resulting in a massive diff (every line differs by at least
> the line-ending). Is there any way you can fix that?
Oh darn... but here comes a diff between two Unix versions of the file. :-)
I think this still needs some kind of review (Bill Rowe wanted to review the
final version of this, and I got a couple of early comments from another
Windows user on this list).
Iikka
========================================
Iikka Meril�inen
Vaala, Finland
E-mail: Iikka.Merilainen@pato.vaala.fi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9+k9yCVGYZ+r4ZncRAjIgAJ4o+MckcIxvV2CDOTzbAnlV/tyyjgCeKhbQ
1kSS0XynQ/52L3qfZsRWGT4=
=lBde
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [PATCH][RESEND] windows.xml rewrite
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Iikka Meriläinen wrote:
> I was just wondering if someone has had time/willingness/knowledge etc. to
> review my rewrite work on windows.xml? The most recent patch is attached to
> this message. Simply put: is the patch worth committing? I personally think
> it makes the topic clearer... :-)
Thanks for the reminder. Feel free to ping again if you don't get a
response.
One issue: Your editor seems to have converted from Unix to DOS
line-endings, resulting in a massive diff (every line differs by at least
the line-ending). Is there any way you can fix that?
Otherwise, whomever goes to commit it can fix it. It just might slow down
the review process.
Joshua.