Re: svn commit: r1387603 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
I cannot think of one good reason why we've been doing the below... I any case, I think vhosts inheriting these structs is a pretty nasty bug, as well as memory hog... On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:17 AM, j...@apache.org wrote: Author: jim Date: Wed Sep 19 14:17:03 2012 New Revision: 1387603 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1387603view=rev Log: wtf are we doing merging in these from the parent?? These are server specific! Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c?rev=1387603r1=1387602r2=1387603view=diff == --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (original) +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Wed Sep 19 14:17:03 2012 @@ -1173,13 +1173,13 @@ static void * merge_proxy_config(apr_poo proxy_server_conf *base = (proxy_server_conf *) basev; proxy_server_conf *overrides = (proxy_server_conf *) overridesv; -ps-proxies = apr_array_append(p, base-proxies, overrides-proxies); -ps-sec_proxy = apr_array_append(p, base-sec_proxy, overrides-sec_proxy); -ps-aliases = apr_array_append(p, base-aliases, overrides-aliases); -ps-noproxies = apr_array_append(p, base-noproxies, overrides-noproxies); -ps-dirconn = apr_array_append(p, base-dirconn, overrides-dirconn); -ps-workers = apr_array_append(p, base-workers, overrides-workers); -ps-balancers = apr_array_append(p, base-balancers, overrides-balancers); +ps-proxies = overrides-proxies; +ps-sec_proxy = overrides-sec_proxy; +ps-aliases = overrides-aliases; +ps-noproxies = overrides-noproxies; +ps-dirconn = overrides-dirconn; +ps-workers = overrides-workers; +ps-balancers = overrides-balancers; ps-forward = overrides-forward ? overrides-forward : base-forward; ps-reverse = overrides-reverse ? overrides-reverse : base-reverse;
RE: svn commit: r1387603 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
Not having looked into this in detail, but I believe you need this if you want to have the balancer manager running in a different virtual host then your balancer e.g. to expose this management interface only on a different port that might not be open to everyone. At least with 2.2.x the way to do this is to define the balancers on global level and use them via inheritance in the virtual hosts (one that uses the balancer and one that has the balancer manager). Having the balancer manager turned on in the production virtual host is likely a non-starter for many people due to security concerns. Regards Rüdiger -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 19. September 2012 16:34 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r1387603 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c I cannot think of one good reason why we've been doing the below... I any case, I think vhosts inheriting these structs is a pretty nasty bug, as well as memory hog... On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:17 AM, j...@apache.org wrote: Author: jim Date: Wed Sep 19 14:17:03 2012 New Revision: 1387603 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1387603view=rev Log: wtf are we doing merging in these from the parent?? These are server specific! Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c ?rev=1387603r1=1387602r2=1387603view=diff == --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (original) +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Wed Sep 19 14:17:03 2012 @@ -1173,13 +1173,13 @@ static void * merge_proxy_config(apr_poo proxy_server_conf *base = (proxy_server_conf *) basev; proxy_server_conf *overrides = (proxy_server_conf *) overridesv; -ps-proxies = apr_array_append(p, base-proxies, overrides- proxies); -ps-sec_proxy = apr_array_append(p, base-sec_proxy, overrides- sec_proxy); -ps-aliases = apr_array_append(p, base-aliases, overrides- aliases); -ps-noproxies = apr_array_append(p, base-noproxies, overrides- noproxies); -ps-dirconn = apr_array_append(p, base-dirconn, overrides- dirconn); -ps-workers = apr_array_append(p, base-workers, overrides- workers); -ps-balancers = apr_array_append(p, base-balancers, overrides- balancers); +ps-proxies = overrides-proxies; +ps-sec_proxy = overrides-sec_proxy; +ps-aliases = overrides-aliases; +ps-noproxies = overrides-noproxies; +ps-dirconn = overrides-dirconn; +ps-workers = overrides-workers; +ps-balancers = overrides-balancers; ps-forward = overrides-forward ? overrides-forward : base- forward; ps-reverse = overrides-reverse ? overrides-reverse : base- reverse;
Re: svn commit: r1387603 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I cannot think of one good reason why we've been doing the below... I any case, I think vhosts inheriting these structs is a pretty nasty bug, as well as memory hog... Hi Jim Is one possible use case for this defining balancers outside of vhosts, and then using them in multiple vhosts? (Personally, I hate this feature, it clutters up unrelated balancer sets on balancer-manager). Cheers Tom
Re: svn commit: r1387603 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
The issue is that muddies the waters as far as whose balancer is this... For example, let's assume you define balancer://foo at the top level and it is inherited by vhost1 and vhost2. If you change a balancer setting in vhost1, should that change be automatically made to the one in vhost2? Or is it specific to vhost1? Personally, I feel that the inheritance is majorly wrong and a major bug. Now that we are allowing realtime changes to these params, we need to restrict them to per-server, which means no inheritance. On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Tom Evans tevans...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I cannot think of one good reason why we've been doing the below... I any case, I think vhosts inheriting these structs is a pretty nasty bug, as well as memory hog... Hi Jim Is one possible use case for this defining balancers outside of vhosts, and then using them in multiple vhosts? (Personally, I hate this feature, it clutters up unrelated balancer sets on balancer-manager). Cheers Tom
Re: svn commit: r1387603 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
Yeah, ever since we started moving many of these params to shared memory, this has been broken. As such, even without the persist, using the balancer-manager to change params causes some unknown and un-seen interactions. I propose that we close this bug in 2.4.x. On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: The issue is that muddies the waters as far as whose balancer is this... For example, let's assume you define balancer://foo at the top level and it is inherited by vhost1 and vhost2. If you change a balancer setting in vhost1, should that change be automatically made to the one in vhost2? Or is it specific to vhost1? Personally, I feel that the inheritance is majorly wrong and a major bug. Now that we are allowing realtime changes to these params, we need to restrict them to per-server, which means no inheritance. On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Tom Evans tevans...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I cannot think of one good reason why we've been doing the below... I any case, I think vhosts inheriting these structs is a pretty nasty bug, as well as memory hog... Hi Jim Is one possible use case for this defining balancers outside of vhosts, and then using them in multiple vhosts? (Personally, I hate this feature, it clutters up unrelated balancer sets on balancer-manager). Cheers Tom
