Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jim@jagunet.com designates
 209.133.192.6 as permitted sender)
Message-Id: <2C985B3E-8659-4D7E-81FB-439FCF4AE678@jaguNET.com>
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4A003FF6.5090509@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: mod_proxy / mod_proxy_balancer
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:10:30 -0400
References: <49FFFCB5.7060701@gmail.com>
 <AF4102EC-720C-4E63-83E1-48737C5A711C@jaguNET.com>
 <4A003FF6.5090509@gmail.com>


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...