=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote: > > > > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Jim Jagielski > > > > to do here. > > >=20 > > > Ok, but this actually works already without your patch. > >=20 > > I never even bothered to check... Brian's initial > > Email said that it didn't. Are you saying that his Email > > is wrong and that balancers defined in the main server > > conf via <Proxy>, as well as their workers, ARE fully > > inherited by Vhosts? > > As far as I saw in my very limited tests: Yes. > This does also match with my code analysis I did in one > of my previous mails (the one with the 'correct me if I am wrong'). > Of course there remain other weird things that are not nice > (e.g. the empty balancer created by the VHOST, the fact that the > empty balancer is not used because it comes later in the array) >
Then I'm confused on what the actual "problem" is then. And shame on me for not trying to recreate the "bug" first before trying to fix it :) We *do* after all merge and append the workers and balancers. I just assumed that one issue was not creating the balancer immediately and waiting for ProxyPass and/or BalancerMember. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
