Re: Allowing balancer without ProxyPass
On 02/03/2021 16:07, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 3:44 PM jean-frederic clere wrote: On 02/03/2021 12:35, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:05 AM jean-frederic clere wrote: Has anyone something against making the above creating a balancer that can be used later by the balancer-manager handler to create the corresponding workers and a customized load_balancer provider to replace the ProxyPass logic? +1 That's something like this right? Yes ;-) OK, but note that it also affects the proxy workers (not only balancers), such that it may define workers that weren't previously and thus enabling keepalive and things like this for them. Yes I already had to add a WorkerGrowth directive in my prototype to be able to create the workers via the logic of the balancer-handler. So at backport time (if ever), this is possibly something to think about ;) Yes I will try to minimize changes ;-) Cheers; Yann. -- Cheers Jean-Frederic
Re: Allowing balancer without ProxyPass
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 3:44 PM jean-frederic clere wrote: > > On 02/03/2021 12:35, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:05 AM jean-frederic clere > > wrote: > >> > >> Has anyone something against making the above creating a balancer that > >> can be used later by the balancer-manager handler to create the > >> corresponding workers and a customized load_balancer provider to replace > >> the ProxyPass logic? > > > > +1 > > > > That's something like this right? > > Yes ;-) OK, but note that it also affects the proxy workers (not only balancers), such that it may define workers that weren't previously and thus enabling keepalive and things like this for them. So at backport time (if ever), this is possibly something to think about ;) Cheers; Yann.
Re: Allowing balancer without ProxyPass
On 02/03/2021 12:35, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:05 AM jean-frederic clere wrote:
Has anyone something against making the above creating a balancer that
can be used later by the balancer-manager handler to create the
corresponding workers and a customized load_balancer provider to replace
the ProxyPass logic?
+1
That's something like this right?
Yes ;-)
Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
===
--- modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c(revision 1887057)
+++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c(working copy)
@@ -2649,7 +2649,7 @@ static const char *proxysection(cmd_parms *cmd, vo
ap_add_per_proxy_conf(cmd->server, new_dir_conf);
-if (*arg != '\0') {
+{
if (thiscmd->cmd_data)
return "Multiple arguments not (yet) supported.";
if (conf->p_is_fnmatch)
--
Regards;
Yann.
--
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
Re: Allowing balancer without ProxyPass
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:05 AM jean-frederic clere wrote:
>
> Has anyone something against making the above creating a balancer that
> can be used later by the balancer-manager handler to create the
> corresponding workers and a customized load_balancer provider to replace
> the ProxyPass logic?
+1
That's something like this right?
Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
===
--- modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c(revision 1887057)
+++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c(working copy)
@@ -2649,7 +2649,7 @@ static const char *proxysection(cmd_parms *cmd, vo
ap_add_per_proxy_conf(cmd->server, new_dir_conf);
-if (*arg != '\0') {
+{
if (thiscmd->cmd_data)
return "Multiple arguments not (yet) supported.";
if (conf->p_is_fnmatch)
--
Regards;
Yann.
Allowing balancer without ProxyPass
Hi, The following in httpd.conf: +++ +++ does nothing in a configuration, not even a warning ;-) Has anyone something against making the above creating a balancer that can be used later by the balancer-manager handler to create the corresponding workers and a customized load_balancer provider to replace the ProxyPass logic? -- Cheers Jean-Frederic
