Eli Marmor wrote: > Then, integration with mod_proxy still needed, because the connection > of mod_proxy with the backend server was still done directly, and not > through the filtering infrastructure.
The v2.0 port has used the filtering infrastructure on the backend since
day one - however this backend filter stack was set up hardwired by
mod_proxy. This will change soon, so that it will be possible to
configure arbitrary filters on the backend (such as mod_headers) exactly
as you can on the frontend.
> Trying to add so many features to mod_proxy, may meet the objection of
> members here, who want a simple and stable mod_proxy, and may fear that
> all of these additions may make mod_proxy a monster (even if it's not
> true).
The main objection I have with many of the requested features being
added to proxy is that the correct solution is to add these features to
*apache* generally, not to proxy specifically.
There have been many suggestions, like the busy locks, that people want
to add to proxy - but these features are very useful in other apache
configurations too - like mod_cgi and mod_jk (and its successors).
Therefore adding the functionality to proxy limits the usefulness to a
single modules only, which is very bad. Solution: create mod_busylock
and add it to experimental.
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
