tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bernd Koecke>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/native2/common jk_worker_lb.c
Date Tue, 14 May 2002 07:26:45 GMT wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2002, Bernd Koecke wrote:
>>The '0' as lb_value is needed to determine which are the main/local-workers. If 
>>we don't have this special value we need an additional config-flag with a list 
>>of the local/main-workers like in Mathias patch.
>>Should I add an additional config-flag (I will take it from Mathias patch) or do 
>>we stay with the special '0' value?
> I think it would be a good idea, it'll make things cleaner.
> 'local_worker' would be allways selected, and if 'main_worker_mode' ( or 
> maybe 'hw_lb_mode' ) no fallback will happen.
>>The 'main_worker_mode' is not the same like the 'in_main_worker_mode' var in 
>>lb_worker struct. If 'main_worker_mode' flag is set to 'reject' in the 
>> the reject var of lb_worker struct is set to JK_TRUE. The 
>>'in_main_worker_mode' var of lb_worker struct is set to JK_TRUE if there is in 
>>minimum one worker with '0' as lb_value.
> That's a bit confusing. Maybe some better variable names are needed.
> 2 flags should be enough - 'local_worker' and 'local_worker_only' ( or 
> something that makes it clear that if the flag is set, no fallback will
> occur but an error is returned for the hw balancer ).

Ok, how should we handle the local_worker list? The current code depends on one 
worker list. And for requests with a session its easier to look into one list. 
Is it ok to have the balanced_workers and one ore more of these workers could be 
  in the local_worker list? Then we could leave must of the code in validate 
function untouched and after getting all the workers we go through the 
local_worker list, if any, and move the worker from this list at the beginning 
of the balanced_workers and mark them as local. Would this be ok? Oterwise we 
have to handle two lists and it would be possible to have only local workers and 
no balanced_workers. Then the lb_module makes no sense, but it is configurable 
and we have to deal with this. Another solution is to have two lists in config 
but only one in lb_worker. But then we have to rewrite most of the code in 
validate and handle memory etc. You know I'm not so experienced in C, so I would 
prefere the first suggestion :).


> I'll implement the same thing in jk2, but I wait your patch for jk1.
> Costin
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

Dipl.-Inform. Bernd Koecke
Schlund+Partner AG
Fon: +49-721-91374-0

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message