As the author, I'm fine with it being removed.  I don't think updating
it would be particularly hard, but I don't have personal interest in
improving mod_proxy with serf at this time.

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Rainer Jung <> wrote:
> While testing the 2.5.0 alpha candidate I noticed, that our optional use of
> serf in mod_proxy and mpm_event is pretty outdated (so unmaintained):
> - the serf API we use was only present in serf until version 0.3.1 (February
> 2010)
> - in May 2010 it was changed inside serf and httpd does not support this
> newer API
> - serf currently is now at version 1.3.9 (August 2016) providing stable
> APIs. There is still some basic maintenance activity in the serf project,
> for instance for supporting newer scons build tool versions or support for
> OpenSSL 1.1.0.
> I do not actually know what the serf support adds to httpd, it seems mostly
> some "SerfCluster" feature for mod_proxy. There's no docs and some comments
> in the code indicate the impl is not complete. SVN logs point to the same
> direction.
> Paul Querna wrote in his 2009 svn commit log message:
> Work in Progress.
> =====================
> Add Clustered proxying support to mod_serf, by using the heartbeats system.
> No preconfiguration of cluster members is needed.
> Just a config like this:
>     SerfCluster sweet heartbeat file=/var/cache/apache/hb.dat
>     SerfCluster sour heartbeat file=/var/cache/apache/cluster2.dat
>     <Location "/">
>       SerfPass cluster://sweet
>     </Location>
>     <Location "/different_cluster">
>       SerfPass cluster://sour
>     </Location>
> The location of all possible destination servers is provided by a new
> providers interface, that includes configuration checking of the arguments
> to the SerfCluster command, solving one of the worst problems with the
> mod_proxy load balancer subsystem.
> ===================
> I suggest we pull the serf dependent code if we can no find a maintainer for
> it. Any comments? Anyone interested in actually updating it and making it
> work?
> Regards,
> Rainer

Reply via email to