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 18:08:48 GMT

On May 5, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> On May 5, 2009, at 12:07 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> On May 5, 2009, at 11:13 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>>> I am trying to get the worker->id and the scoreboard associated  
>>>> logic moved in the reset() when using a balancer, those workers  
>>>> need a different handling if we want to have a shared information  
>>>> area for them.
>>> The thing is that those workers are not really handled
>>> by the balancer itself (nor should be), so the reset() shouldn;'t
>>> apply. IMO, mod_proxy inits the generic forward/reverse workers
>>> and m_p_b should handle the balancer-related ones.
>> Ok by running first the m_p_b child_init() the worker is  
>> initialised by the m_p_b logic and mod_proxy won't change it later.
> Yeah... a quick test indicates, at least as far as the perl
> framework is considered, changing to that m_p_b runs 1st in child_init
> results in normal and expected behavior.... Need to do some more
> tracing to see if we can copy the pointer instead of the whole
> data set with this ordering.

Looks like we can simply copy the pointer with that change...
So far, haven't run into any scoping or lifetime issues... The
change is ugly though, since we need to adjust for ** instead
of * for lots of code fragments... :)

View raw message