httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Proxy's pre_request and post_request hooks
Date Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:57:51 GMT

On Feb 15, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Nick Kew wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:07:38 -0500
> Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>> Right now, both of these are defined as
>> APR_IMPLEMENT_EXTERNAL_HOOK_RUN_FIRST and the ones we use
>> are at APR_HOOK_FIRST. They also always return OK (unless
>> an error) so this means that we can never add additional
>> hooks here and have them run (don't talk to me about
>> REALLY_FIRST :) ).
>>
>> Anyway, considering some of the LB stuff we've been talking
>> about, it would be very useful to be able to have providers
>> and others utilize these hooks (eg: for timestamping start
>> and end of requests), but with RUN_FIRST, we're limiting
>> that.
>>
>> Soooooo I'm proposing changing to RUN_ALL...
>>
>> Comments?
>
> That's a public API you're proposing to change.  Ergo, something
> on a 2.4 timescale.
>

This was proposed for -trunk; but it would be useful for 2.2
as well...

> Wouldn't changing existing HOOK_FIRST functions to return DECLINED
> achieve what you need without breaking anything?

But ap_proxy_pre_request() would need adjustment... which
is also an "exported" function...

Of course, I don't see how this could impact anyone external
since the very fact that they are RUN_FIRST and HOOK_FIRST
implies no one else is (able to) use them right now...
So yes, even though would change the public API of these
2 hooks, I think the usefulness of it is worth it, and
hence why I wanted comments :)

Mime
View raw message