How can Elog start automatically on Windows Server 2008 on startup ?, posted by Philipp W. on Fri Dec 3 13:56:20 2010
|
Hi all,
i have a question... How can i manage it that elog starts automatically on windows startup ? I always need to type "elogd -p 85"
in the console that it starts ... |
|
Isolating search urls, posted by Philip Leung on Wed Aug 12 16:59:30 2015
|
Hello all,
I am in need of isolating GET-requests referring to long-running, read-only elog functions such as search/filter/sort in our Apache proxy and
redirecting them elsewhere. There does not, however, appear to be any easy way of reliably isolating these functions (with the exception of sort) by only |
Re: Isolating search urls, posted by Philip Leung on Thu Aug 13 10:05:22 2015
|
Thanks for the quick response!
The idea is to run multiple instances of elog where
Stefan |
|
Re: Isolating search urls, posted by Philip Leung on Thu Aug 13 10:06:23 2015
|
Thanks for the quick response!
It's great to hear that multi-threading is in the works as this has been my main issue with an otherwise very nice piece of software. I do,
however, feel like we should be able to get my slightly hacky approach to work to hold us over until you finish. |
|
Re: Isolating search urls, posted by Philip Leung on Mon Aug 17 10:32:51 2015
|
Is there no good way of differentiating search operations from others by URL?
Philip
Leung wrote:
Thanks for the quick response! |
|
Re: Isolating search urls, posted by Philip Leung on Mon Aug 17 11:17:37 2015
|
This only applies to searches which specify that they are searching through the message text though. It would not work for things like quick filter
Stefan
Ritt wrote:
Look for "&subtext=" in the URL |
|
Re: Isolating search urls, posted by Philip Leung on Mon Aug 17 11:28:08 2015
|
Would there be a simple way to redirect all URLs BUT the ones which trigger searches?
Stefan
Ritt wrote:
For any other filter you need "&<attribute>=", which |
|
Re: Isolating search urls, posted by Philip Leung on Mon Aug 17 11:52:54 2015
|
Noted. Thank you for your time
Stefan
Ritt wrote:
No, no and again: no. |