httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: mod_proxy / mod_proxy_balancer
Date Tue, 05 May 2009 15:09:55 GMT

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?

Hoping this goes thru: having major issues with SMTP while in

The history was that we assumed that mod_proxy_balancer was
an "optional" package for mod_proxy, and so we would create the
worker entities, and then add (memcpy) them to the balancers
entry after the fact (or as needed). So that's why we are copying
instead of simply passing pointers... Ideally, it would be
good to get back to that, and just have mod_proxy worry about
the default forward and reverse proxy workers and m_p_b worry
about balancers. Otherwise, we have even more nasty overlap
than we already do...

View raw message