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 jfclere@gmail.com designates
 209.85.219.214 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=icnKYivToThmzAe9B0BQ8lxYwPMrcfmjG8cNaSbzb7TKzT0JEtHiUBf21CRob/KmWj
         mjjLCnZxNuvVrbLzKLY5jlmhSqafRo8gwQfPzTH9PPWk3nTzg4eiExVADBZufdhzaCUa
         Gfqd2zcnyYB7Vsv35N2G1ZDLvvG2Hdi1G5n8I=
Message-ID: <4BC57110.50400@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:38:56 +0200
From: jean-frederic clere <jfclere@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre
 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Arranging mod_proxy_balancer in trunk
References: <4BBC8937.3090506@gmail.com>
 <99EA83DCDE961346AFA9B5EC33FEC08B03B4237E@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>
 <4BBD8CBD.3070200@gmail.com>
 <2EE95B84-B7DA-4942-9824-31E18FD74EB2@apache.org>
 <61A92586-1E3F-4B37-AF5A-06DD92AC0B7D@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <61A92586-1E3F-4B37-AF5A-06DD92AC0B7D@jaguNET.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 04/13/2010 10:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2010, at 3:58 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/07/2010 03:40 PM, "Pl�m, R�diger, VF-Group" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: jean-frederic clere [mailto:jfclere@gmail.com] 
>>>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. April 2010 15:32
>>>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Arranging mod_proxy_balancer in trunk
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> In mod_proxy_balancer after
>>>>> runtime = find_session_route(*balancer, r, &route, &sticky, url);
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a logic that belongs to the LB implementation, my 
>>>>> idea is to add a
>>>>> apr_status_t (*updatelbstatus)(proxy_balancer *balancer, proxy_worker
>>>>> *elected, server_rec *s);
>>>>> in the proxy_balancer_method (mod_proxy.h) and call the LB 
>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments?
>>>>
> 
> You should also likely pass a int * (or something) to handle
> the requirement to also "know" total_factor outside of that
> call... Of course, lbstatus is something that outside code
> shouldn't really know about, but that's a whole 'nother
> point ;)

total_factor in fact depends on the LB implementation I don't think it
should go outside it.

Cheers

Jean-Frederic