On May 31, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I guess it depend on what we mean by "healthy"... We could
ping the socket and make sure there's a response at the network
stack layer, which would be protocol agnostic. Or, each
proxy module would need to implement some pro
On May 31, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 3:47 pm, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Of course, there is a growing school of thought that questions
whether the whole AJP stuff itself is worthwhile... just
proxy HTTP and be done with it. :)
This was a question raised way bac
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I guess it depend on what we mean by "healthy"... We could
ping the socket and make sure there's a response at the network
stack layer, which would be protocol agnostic. Or, each
proxy module would need to implement some protocol specific
"ping/pong" test.
Right, the cpin
On Wed, May 31, 2006 3:47 pm, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Of course, there is a growing school of thought that questions
> whether the whole AJP stuff itself is worthwhile... just
> proxy HTTP and be done with it. :)
This was a question raised way back when before the ajp work started, the
question wa
On May 28, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
3. Currently connections are not checked if they are healthy
*before* a request is send
(something like mod_jk's connect_timeout, prepost_timeout). I
think this would be nice to have,
but I guess it is not easy to do this in a protoco
On 05/28/2006 03:18 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On 5/27/06, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 05/27/2006 03:58 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Are there still fundamental pieces missing from mod_proxy_ajp +
>> > mod_proxy_balancer which have to be resolved before mod_proxy_ajp is
>> > the
On 5/27/06, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 05/27/2006 03:58 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> Are there still fundamental pieces missing from mod_proxy_ajp +
> mod_proxy_balancer which have to be resolved before mod_proxy_ajp is
> the natural solution for anybody on Apache >= 2.2?
Cur
On 05/27/2006 03:58 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> Are there still fundamental pieces missing from mod_proxy_ajp +
> mod_proxy_balancer which have to be resolved before mod_proxy_ajp is
> the natural solution for anybody on Apache >= 2.2?
Currently mod_proxy_balancer lacks the domain feature of m
