On May 5, 2009, at 9:32 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On May 5, 2009, at 4:45 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There are 2 weird things in the logic.
>>> - In ap_proxy_add_worker_to_balancer() we make a copy of the
>>> worker, why not just the address?
>>> If you looks to child_init() in mod_proxy and mod_proxy_balancer
>>> we see that mod_proxy initialise one copy and mod_proxy_balancer
>>> the other, it is working but one of the copies is never used.
>>>
>>> - We want the child_init of mod_proxy before mod_proxy_balancer,
>>> that prevents reset() of the balancer_method to control the
>>> creation of the worker.
>>>
>> Yeah, all on target.
>
> The next thing I am on is the ap_proxy_create_worker() called for
> reverse and forward (conf->reverse and conf->forward).
> ap_proxy_create_worker() fills the worker->id and they use
> ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share().e really need a shared
> information for those?
>
I think keeping these shared makes sense...
|