httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>
Subject Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Date Wed, 06 May 2009 15:02:51 GMT
 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: jean-frederic clere 
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 16:40
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
> 
> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Rainer Jung 
> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 15:10
> >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >> 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).

How so?
The new structure makes them separate modules which require separate
LoadModule lines for each them. Thus existing configurations simply
get broken. IMHO the logic structure (them being providers) is not
different between 2.2.x and trunk.

Regards

Rüdiger


Mime
View raw message