Re: mod_proxy's aside connections proposal

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I guess the main question is what are the actual use-cases? NTLM at the very least. That's the context it comes up in periodically.

Re: mod_proxy's aside connections proposal

I guess the main question is what are the actual use-cases? On Mar 3, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote: On 09/30/2014 04:47 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: Hello, I have proposed a patch for PR39673 but I'm not sure it would be accepted for mainline httpd, so here I am.

Re: mod_proxy's aside connections proposal

On 09/30/2014 04:47 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: Hello, I have proposed a patch for PR39673 but I'm not sure it would be accepted for mainline httpd, so here I am. Hi, I would like to get more opinions on the patch Yann proposed in this email. I fully understand that NTLM is not HTTP/1.1

Re: mod_proxy's aside connections proposal

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote: When acquire is NULL but baton isn't, a built-in acquire function is used to select an existing or create a new connection associated to a conn_rec (and still the worker). The baton is assumed to be a conn_rec (eg. the

mod_proxy's aside connections proposal

Hello, I have proposed a patch for PR39673 but I'm not sure it would be accepted for mainline httpd, so here I am. The patch adds the possibility (for a module) to acquire a connection aside from the worker's reslist, so that it won't be acquired from the reslist nor put back to it once released

Re: mod_proxy's aside connections proposal

Hi, On 30.09.2014 16:47, Yann Ylavic wrote: Do you think this can/should (not) be applied to httpd? I would love to see this applied to httpd. Regards, Micha