jean-frederic clere wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 5, 2009, at 4:45 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
Hi,
There are 2 weird things in the logic.
- In ap_proxy_add_worker_to_balancer() we make a copy of the worker,
why not just the address?
If you looks to child_init() in mod_proxy and mod_proxy_balancer we
see that mod_proxy initialise one copy and mod_proxy_balancer the
other, it is working but one of the copies is never used.
- We want the child_init of mod_proxy before mod_proxy_balancer, that
prevents reset() of the balancer_method to control the creation of
the worker.
Yeah, all on target.
The next thing I am on is the ap_proxy_create_worker() called for
reverse and forward (conf->reverse and conf->forward).
ap_proxy_create_worker() fills the worker->id and they use
ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share().e really need a shared information
for those?
I already answered that to you ;)
The rest of the code doesn't differentiate the worker types,
so it is presumed that the worker has a share.
Sure you can use the malloc for the share, but then you will
have no track of data transfers on those workers.
May I ask why is that such a problem?
Regards
--
^(TM)
