Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9819 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2006 20:56:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Mar 2006 20:56:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 61833 invoked by uid 500); 27 Mar 2006 20:56:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 61531 invoked by uid 500); 27 Mar 2006 20:56:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 61520 invoked by uid 99); 27 Mar 2006 20:56:40 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:56:40 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [209.237.227.194] (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (209.237.227.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:56:39 -0800 Received: (qmail 9691 invoked by uid 2161); 27 Mar 2006 20:56:19 -0000 Received: from [192.168.2.4] (euler.heimnetz.de [192.168.2.4]) by cerberus.heimnetz.de (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.0 (i386)) with ESMTP id 797AA1721C for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:56:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4428516E.9050301@apache.org> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:56:14 +0200 From: Ruediger Pluem User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920 X-Accept-Language: de, en, de-de, en-gb, cy, zu, xh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: AW: Config Bug in proxy_balancer? References: <5D21C2F2-56A8-432B-94A1-A1192551E6B2@jaguNET.com> <4428434D.7060908@apache.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 03/27/2006 10:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> > > What we needed to avoid was the case where a balancer defined in > VhostA leaked into VhostB. You should not be able to define > balancers in one Vhost and have them available in others; it's That makes things clearer to me. Thanks. BTW: I agree with this. > certainly a weird regression. Now *inheriting* one from the main > server does make sense, kindof, and that's what we're trying > to do here. Ok, but this actually works already without your patch. We only face the weird issue right now that an (later) unused empty balancer with the same name gets created in the vhost. Next question: How to deal with parameters set for the balancer via ProxySet? Currently these settings get lost. OTH it wouldn't make sense to apply them to the balancer inherited from the main server if do not create a *complete copy* of this balancer. Ok. Thats enough devils advocate for now :-). Regards Rüdiger