https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62556
--- Comment #5 from Armin Abfalterer <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Yann Ylavic from comment #4) > Almost, attachment 36043 [details] (btw, now committed to trunk in r1836276) > is needed for things to work in mod_proxy_hcheck, but the change you propose > here is more general. > > We can't create balancers/workers for every <Proxy> section though, think of > <Proxy *> for instance (it does not work because ap_proxy_define_worker() > wants a full URL with a scheme). > > <Proxy > is a placeholder to set parameters associated to a worker/balancer, > but that worker/balancer is not really created unless it's used somewhere. Ok, I see what you mean. > So I'd rather see a cross module function (optional fn) to create a > worker/balancer if it does not exist already, reusing an existing <Proxy > > configuration, if any. That function could then be used by mod_proxy_hcheck > or mod_rewrite on post_config. Isn't that function not already given with ap_proxy_define_balancer()? E.g. as used by mod_proxy.c:add_member() to set up the balancer if not already done. The only thing is that (proxy_balancer *) balancer->section_config is not set accordingly (and so, causing the patch 36043 not to work). > The "register a <Proxy > worker/balancer when at least one parameter is > given" trick is here to handle possible dynamic/runtime configurations with > mod_rewrite [P] flag, I think. Thanks, that brings some light into. Regards, Armin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
