On 3/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Thu Mar 9 10:39:16 2006
> @@ -218,6 +218,26 @@
> }
> }
> }
> + else if (!strcasecmp(key, "ajpflushpackets")) {
> + if (!strcasecmp(val, "on"))
> + worker->ajp_flush_packets = ajp_flush_on;
> + else if (!strcasecmp(val, "off"))
> + worker->ajp_flush_packets = ajp_flush_off;
> + else if (!strcasecmp(val, "auto"))
> + worker->ajp_flush_packets = ajp_flush_auto;
> + else
> + return "FlushPackets must be On|Off|Auto";
> + }
> + else if (!strcasecmp(key, "ajpflushwait")) {
> + ival = atoi(val);
> + if (ival > 1000 || ival < 0) {
> + return "AJPFlushWait must be <= 1000, or 0 for system default of
> 10 millseconds.";
> + }
> + if (ival == 0)
> + worker->ajp_flush_wait = AJP_FLUSH_WAIT;
> + else
> + worker->ajp_flush_wait = ival * 1000; /* change to
> microseconds */
> + }
> else {
> return "unknown Worker parameter";
> }
This isn't really a complaint about this particular change, more about
the way the worker parameter stuff works at the moment.
Sticking per-backend info like ajp_flush_wait into the worker object
and the code to configure it in mod_proxy.c itself seems very wrong to
me. There should be a per-backend contect pointer to hold per-backend
information, and the work of handling worker parameters really should
be pushed to a per-backend callback or something like that.
-garrett
