On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:00 AM Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:19 PM <yla...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Author: ylavic > > Date: Thu Jan 7 13:19:08 2021 > > New Revision: 1885239 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1885239&view=rev > > Log: > > mod_proxy_wstunnel: leave Upgrade requests handling to mod_proxy_http. > [snip] > > +static int proxy_wstunnel_post_config(apr_pool_t *pconf, apr_pool_t *plog, > > + apr_pool_t *ptemp, server_rec *s) > > +{ > > + fallback_to_mod_proxy_http = 0; > > + if (ap_state_query(AP_SQ_MAIN_STATE) != AP_SQ_MS_CREATE_PRE_CONFIG) { > > + apr_size_t i = 0; > > + const module *mod; > > + while ((mod = ap_loaded_modules[i++])) { > > + if (strcmp(mod->name, "mod_proxy_http.c") == 0) { > > + fallback_to_mod_proxy_http = 1; > > + break; > > + } > > + } > > + } >
doesn't ap_find_linked_module() do this? > I wonder if, instead of the above loop to check whether mod_proxy_http > is loaded, we'd better have an OPTIONAL_FN registered by > mod_proxy_http and retrieved here. > ISTR that we allow for different versions of (proxy) modules to run > together, so if a user upgrades to the latest mod_proxy_wstunnel but > keeps an older mod_proxy_http the above would not work.. I don't think we should have to tolerate this, not for included modules. Is the context maybe for downstream distributions? > Maybe I should apply the attached patch instead, or is it overkill? since it's already written and short and conceptually pretty simple I think it's good.
