Eli Marmor wrote: > I'll be grateful if you can answer me the following about the status of > mod_proxy in Apache-2.0.23: > > 1. Is it stable, more or less? How does its stability compare to mod_proxy > of 1.3?
Until we can get it out in one of the betas there is no way of telling -
though I don't have any reason to believe that it's not. There have been
a steady stream of bugfixes and changes over the last few months, so it
is receiving exposure.
> 2. Does it support HTTP/1.1?
It is 100% HTTP/1.1 (and if it isn't it's a bug).
> 3. Is there still any showstopper?
Not that I aware of.
> 4. Does it support ALL sites? (including problematic such as akamai, yahoo,
> etc.)
It does for me - the showstoppers seem to have been caused by problems
in various filters outside of the proxy. Needs more exposure to confirm
though.
> 5. How does it perform? How does its performance compare to 1.3?
No-one has really checked yet to my knowledge.
Keep in mind though that the v2.0 proxy is just a proxy - there is no
caching whatsoever - this is the job of a separate independant module
called mod_tcache that is still in the works.
> 6. How does it work with SSL turned on?
Dunno - but if it doesn't it's a bug.
> If there are two versions of mod_proxy (as in 1.3), one that is included in
> the standard source tree of Apache, and another one which is applied as
> patches, please answer the above questions about both of the versions.
There is only 1 version of the proxy for v2.0.
The patch for v1.3 is an HTTP/1.1 patch that was never applied to v1.3
because it was too big. (Unfortunately as much of the patch involves
rewrites of a number of routines the patch only works as a unit).
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
