httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1725949 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/expr.xml
Date Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:06:36 GMT
I get:

    AH00102: [Thu Jan 21 18:05:44 2016] file util_expr_eval.c, line 218, assertion "data !=
((void*)0)" failed


> On Jan 21, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de> wrote:
> 
> Am 21.01.2016 um 17:55 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> even better!
>> 
>> sounds cool.
> 
> First impl done in r1726038.
> 
> I guess you have everything in place to do a quick test? That would be nice.
> 
> svn log is:
> 
> Implement expr lookup in mod_proxy_hcheck for
> variables whose names start with "HC_" and for
> the new function hc().
> 
> Currently only HC_BODY and hc(body) are supported.
> Both return the saved body of the health check
> response to be used in an expr that decides about
> success of a check.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rainer
> 
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Am 21.01.2016 um 17:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> Did you want me to work on it, or are you?
>>> 
>>> I just had some late lunch and started to think closer about it. Since kept_body
was previously only used for request bodies, wouldn't it be nicer to *not* expose the HC response
body under that name in the expression parser, and instead register an expr extension from
HC which handles a new function, say hc(), with a first supported argument "body"? So hc(body)
returns whatever HC wants to.
>>> 
>>> You could still use the kept_body field in your impl (or some other place now
or later) but we wouldn't expose this implementation detail to the outside world.
>>> 
>>> I have already done an expr function extension in some custom module, it is pretty
easy to do (and httpd uses that feature e.g. in mod_ssl).
>>> 
>>> So yes, if you like I can do it. But do you like the idea?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Rainer
>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sounds good to me!!
>>>>> 
>>>>> thx!
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I should have asked earlier: wouldn't it be more suitable to implement
to response body as a variable instead of a function?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When looking at server/util_expr_eval.c, I find request_var_names
and request_var_fn. The former is a list of variable names, and the latter implements returning
the values from parts of the request struct. Returning the flattened kept_body should be a
good fit there as well, without having users wonder, why it is a function that requires an
argument.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If we expect further response stuff coming, we could also clone request_var_names
and request_var_fn with new response_var_names and response_var_fn and add the variable as
the first and currently only one there.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The variable name could be KEPT_BODY.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> WDYT? I can also do the little reorg, but which way do we prefer?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rainer


Mime
View raw message