httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yann Ylavic <>
Subject Re: mod_rewrite/proxy UDS issues
Date Sun, 30 Nov 2014 22:48:00 GMT
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Eric Covener <> wrote:
> Did this become unnecessary when SetHandler/AddHandler support was
> added for proxy:unix:/ ... configuration?

I think both are orthogonals.

One can use <Proxy "unix:/tmp/backend.sock|http://localhost/...> to
declare a worker whose connections will be reusable by :
1.Set/AddHandler "unix:/tmp/backend.sock|http://localhost/..."
2. RewriteRule ... [H=unix:/tmp/backend.sock|http://localhost/...]
3. RewriteRule ... "http://localhost/.." [P]
But not by :
4. RewriteRule ... "unix:/tmp/backend.sock|http://localhost/..." [P]

Yes 1. and 2. are two nice/efficient "shortcut" alternatives.
But I find 3. vs 4. quite confusing, proxying via RewriteRule is often
used (and even very useful thanks to RewriteCond decision), so we
should either document on that, or fix it.

I also find the idea of having an optional function between mod_proxy
(provider) and mod_rewrite quite useful, since there is no point in
using a [P] or [H=proxy:...] rules without mod_proxy loaded.
The failure to retrieve this proxy optional function could be detected
at init time to raise an error if any [P] or [H=proxy:...] is

After re-reading this thread, I would now rather propose that this
optional function be downright ap_proxy_declare_worker().
Thus the proxy worker would be automagically declared with the
RewriteRule at init time, and the run time could use the available
proxy_worker struct directly to do its [P] job.
Maybe that's what Jim was thinking about as a "non-obvious but elegant
solution" where "2 workers map onto the same one", back in February


View raw message