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 18:08:50 GMT
That is with:

  ProxyHCExpr foof2 {hc('body') !~ /domain is established/}

With

  ProxyHCExpr foof2 {kept_body('body') !~ /domain is established/}

it works as expected.

Thx!
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> 
> 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