Thanks for your comments.
Commited in r1588527.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Why can't we fix that directly in ap_proxy_create_hdrbrgd?
Actually we can, and that's indeed a
Helo,
I revive this thread since headers in modfied by mod_proxy seems wrong
to me, I have to take that into account when, say, analysing access
logs (received X-Forwarded-* or Via headers vs the ones added by
mod_proxy, see also PR 45387), or as said in the title, which is even
worse when
This seems to change some logic which appear only tangentially
associated w/ the save headers issue... why is that?
On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c
===
---
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
This seems to change some logic which appear only tangentially
associated w/ the save headers issue... why is that?
Do you mean, ...
On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Index:
Here is the patch not polluted by working collisions or gotos :
Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy_wstunnel.c
===
--- modules/proxy/mod_proxy_wstunnel.c(revision 1584652)
+++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy_wstunnel.c(working copy)
@@
Why can't we fix that directly in ap_proxy_create_hdrbrgd?
Regards
Rüdiger
Yann Ylavic wrote:
Here is the patch not polluted by working collisions or gotos :
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Why can't we fix that directly in ap_proxy_create_hdrbrgd?
Actually we can, and that's indeed a much simpler patch.
I was worried about modifications of Content-Length and/or
Transfer-Encoding outside
Hi,
when mod_proxy(_http) has to forward the same request multiple times
(next balancer's worker / 100-continue ping), it duplicates
(re-merges) the same Via and X-Forwarded-* values as many times.
This is because ap_proxy_create_hdrbrgd() works directly on
r-headers_in before constructing the
This happens, at most, what, maybe 2 times? Is that
really an issue? And if so, since ap_proxy_http_request()
is local static, we could certainly pass the number of retries
to it and bypass the extra call to ap_proxy_create_hdrbrgd()
on retries, right?
Or am I missing something (which I likely am
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
This happens, at most, what, maybe 2 times? Is that
really an issue?
The worst case is 2 x number of balancer's workers tries, when the
request is a POST, ping is configured and all the balancer's wokers
aren't
10 matches
Mail list logo
