httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Guernsey, Byron \(GE Consumer & Industrial\)" <BYRON.GUERN...@GE.COM>
Subject RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Date Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:26:42 GMT

I'm late joining this discussion, but wanted to add my 2 cents.

We are using mod_proxy and a patched mod_rewrite to do sticky load balancing.  Mod_rewrite
supports cookies, but not session based cookies.  I added this functionality and posted the
patch here (see "mod_rewrite cookie patch (PR#28391)")- still trying to figure out how to
get it included in the httpd. 

I would find it very useful if keepalive connections were supported in mod_proxy.   If I could
reuse the connections, my sticky load balancing solution, which supports tomcat and the older
enhydra or any app server that has a unqie cookie, would be as fast as a normal ajp connector.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Leggett [] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
> André Malo wrote:
> > Where's the user base of mod_imap (installed by default) or 
> > mod_cern_meta or the old outdated NCSA config directives? 
> We add and 
> > add and add code -- which is not actually bad. But where's 
> the man with the broom?
> The issue of unmaintained code is an important issue, but not 
> one which should stop us considering new code. Whether 
> mod_rewrite is maintained or not has nothing to do with a 
> potential proxy_ajp, a module which by virtue of the volume 
> of the discussion on it is certainly not going to have any 
> maintenance issues any time soon. :)
> But at the end of the day guys with brooms are not what is 
> important, it is the end users, whether there are any, and 
> whether they're satisfied. 
> If the code works and the users are happy, there is no need 
> for a broom.
> > Just to make sure, I'm not finally against adding a new module. But 
> > IMHO the much better way should be to improve the integration of TP 
> > modules rather than to put all of them in the core distribution.
> Thing is it's easier for end users to not have to mess around 
> with third party builds if it can possibly be avoided, and 
> it's the needs of the end users who are the most important, 
> not the developers.
> The fact that the current module has to be built separately 
> is a huge issue for the users of the module, making such a 
> module a built in addition to proxy will make people's lives easier.
> Regards,
> Graham
> --

View raw message