On 9/1/07, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> what's the point? 304 is understood as a hit, the same as 200, but the
> content is not resent to client, because client already has it.
>
Just trying to reduce the size of access.logs. It isn't a big deal,
but I just thought that
> On 8/20/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And further, it's probably not worth it to do so as you can just
> > filter the logs during processing, or during the logging by using a
> > piped logger.
On 21.08.07 11:02, Brian Munroe wrote:
> That is the solution I am looking into. Tha
On 8/20/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And further, it's probably not worth it to do so as you can just
> filter the logs during processing, or during the logging by using a
> piped logger.
>
That is the solution I am looking into. Thanks for the confirmation.
-- brian
---
On 21/08/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/08/07, Brian Munroe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just wanted to make sure I was reading the httpd documentation
> > correctly. There is no way to use conditional logging to drop 304
> > HTTP status codes, right?
> >
> > Anyone have a s
On 21/08/07, Brian Munroe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wanted to make sure I was reading the httpd documentation
> correctly. There is no way to use conditional logging to drop 304
> HTTP status codes, right?
>
> Anyone have a solution they'd like to share?
I can't think of one. I'd like to
Just wanted to make sure I was reading the httpd documentation
correctly. There is no way to use conditional logging to drop 304
HTTP status codes, right?
Anyone have a solution they'd like to share?
thanks
-- brian
-
The offi
