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:
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
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
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
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,
