https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53388
--- Comment #3 from Eric Garreau <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #2) > I don't understand your answer I am afraid. > > I still find this to be an issue. Their should be an inbuilt mechanism > checking that the balancermember exits. > /Peter Hi My answer was only about the path appended to the 'scheme:/host:port/' declaration of your BalancerMembers (my experience says a BalancerMember should be seen as a "pure" host definition, and that the optional backend path should be declared in the ProxyPass/ProxyPassReverse lines) Anyway, I understand your point. Indeed, using a non-existent Proxy or using a Proxy which has zero BalancerMember has the same '503' effect, because this information is a pure run-time evaluation made by lbmethod providers (it is not their role to detect a wrong setup) This happens because the object is transparently created when the 'ProxyPass' directive is evaluated (it is probably made in order to allow a forward declaration of the balancer itself): (mod_proxy.c) ((( proxy_balancer *balancer = ap_proxy_get_balancer(cmd->pool, conf, r); if (!balancer) { const char *err = ap_proxy_add_balancer(&balancer, cmd->pool, conf, r); ))) Maybe a coherence check in the post_config hook could validate that there is no 'balancer://' object with zero elements ? (I can /try/ to make it...) eric -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
