Jim Jagielski schrieb: > Yes, and that's why it's confusing. I can also see cases > where you would want a hot-standby available at the same > distance as well (check to see if there's a hot standby > first, before checking hosts at a greater "distance").
You are totally right, I missed that one. > > IMO, just because something is done one way in mod_jk doesn't > mean that it makes sense to copy the exact naming, etc over > to mod_proxy. People who do HTTP proxying and LB have one set > of "expectations" which occasionally do not map to how mod_jk > has done things. I didn't want to have it work exactly like mod_jk, I simply forgot about your above use case. I'm not totally happy with mod_jk, because it grew over a long time, whenever a special new use case appeared, but it lacks consistency of configurations options and how they interact.
