httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ryo takatsuki <ryotakats...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: UDS support for mod_rewrite
Date Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:07:01 GMT
Just a las quick comment about using a <Proxy> section to define the proxy.
I could not make it work using the below snippet:

         <Proxy "unix:/path/to/some.sock|fcgi://myserver">
         </Proxy>

Digging into the code, I realized the worker was only created if more
arguments were provided (which is not mentioned to be possible in the docs,
or I could not find it):

         <Proxy "unix:/path/to/some.sock|fcgi://myserver" timeout=300 >
         </Proxy>

Then the worker is created and I can remove my extra "ProxyPass"
directives. Is it intended to only create the worker if we need to
configure its settings?

It makes sense but it would be a good improvement to make the worker to be
always created if it does not exists, regardless of if some more settings
are provided.

Sorry about the offtopic and thanks a lot to  Rüdiger for the hint!


2014/1/22 ryo takatsuki <ryotakatsuki@gmail.com>

> >Your "hack" has the additional benefit is being
> >a pooled connection and not a one-shot, and therefore
> >will have better performance. But that isn't related
> >to UDS at all.
>
> Well, it is related to UDS in the sense of being my solution to make my
> rewrites end up serving content obtained through a Unix socket :).
>
> I initially had the old version of the UDS patch working with mod_rewrite
> (using the default forward proxy worker) but it broke with newer versions
> of the patch so I figured out that way of tricking mod_rewrite.
>
> Regarding using a <Proxy> section to define the workers, I see the code
> that should be defining it but I'm not able to make it work. I will
> investigate it a little further, thanks!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Juanjo.
>
>
> 2014/1/22 Daniel Ruggeri <DRuggeri@primary.net>
>
>> On 1/22/2014 5:48 AM, Juan José Medina Godoy wrote:
>> > Do you think that approach is safe or is it likely to break at some
>> > point? (relaying on the workers being located by url in that way,
>> > without having to provide the socket in the rewrite)
>>
>> Seems safe... and quite clever, actually.
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>  I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
> I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near Tannhauser Gate.
> All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain.
> Time to die.
>



-- 
 I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near Tannhauser Gate.
All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain.
Time to die.

Mime
View raw message