Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:44 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote: > >> Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:09 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. IMHO requires a minor bump. >>>> >>>> Find a patch that covers all the points you raised below. >>>> >>>> More comments? >>>> >>> >>> Requires a major bump. Also destroys all those mystical >>> other "balancers" from working as-is, since they >>> must now be not only recompiled but also re-coded to >>> implement ap_proxy_lb_worker_size() so that the >>> old "lb_score" entry exists and has some size associated >>> with it... >> >> ap_proxy_lb_worker_size is in mod_proxy as Rüdiger suggested it. > > My point is that this function must be defined by any "other" > balancer that wants to use this scoreboard space. You had > mentioned concern that we can't be monkeying all that > much with lb_score and stuff because "other" balancers > may be wanting to use it. This patch does nothing to > help that really... once the API breaks, well, we > can do whatever we want :) > >> >> I agree it can't be backported to 2.2 but why can't it by in trunk? >> > > Never said it couldn't. Just made a comment that this > patch isn't suitable for backporting. If I didn't care > about a backportable patch, I would have originally created > something quite different than what I did. 2.2 *still* has > the problem. Instead, we're fixing something that doesn't > have a problem... :/ > > Of course, all this assumes that the present usage of > a general scoreboard is still the right design choice. > Personally, as was discussed awhile ago, we need > a better abstraction as well as moving *away* from > a general purpose-shove-everything-in-here scoreboard.
I tried something in that direction in httpd/branches/httpd-proxy-scoreboard. The goal was to offer another storage for the proxy_worker_stat of mod_proxy. What do you want to do? Cheers Jean-Frederic
