On May 5, 2009, at 9:32 AM, 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 think keeping these shared makes sense...
