httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jean-frederic clere <>
Subject Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Date Wed, 06 May 2009 14:40:16 GMT
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Rainer Jung 
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 15:10
>> An:
>> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
>> On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy 
>> branch, with the
>>> intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the 
>> branch used the
>>> same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory 
>> that includes
>>> the balancer methods (as well as the config magic 
>> associated with it).
>>> However, if that will be a impediment to actually *getting* these
>>> backports into 2.2, then I'm willing to keep the old structure...
>>> So my question is: if to be able to easily backport the 
>> various trunk
>>> proxy improvements into 2.2, we also need to backport the dir
>>> structure as well, is that OK? I don't want to work down that
>>> path only to have it wasted work because people think that such a
>>> directory restructure doesn't make sense within a 2.2.x release.
>>> PS: NO, I am not considering this for 2.2.12! :)
>> I guess at the heart of this is the question, how likely we break some
>> part of the users build process for 2.2.x. My feeling is, that the
>> additional sub directory for the balancing method implementations is a
>> small change and users build process should not break due to this
>> additional one directory.
>> On the positive side apart from easier backports: the new subdirectory
>> might make people more curious on how to add a custom 
>> balancing method,
>> so we get a slightly better visibility for the existing 
>> provider interface.
> The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x
> as the balancers are now in separate modules. Thus I am -0.5 on
> backporting this directory structure to 2.2.x.

May be we could keep the file structure but change the logic to the new one.
For the external proxy_balancer_method we could detect old and new ones 
no? (We have the NULL for that).



> Regards
> Rüdiger

View raw message