At 10:56 AM 8/16/2004, jean-frederic clere wrote: >There are different things: >We could be serving to another proxy in this case my patch is just a work-around and >proxy_balancer.c should handle the CONNECT uri and we could have something like: > ><Proxy 0.0.0.0:8080> > BalancerMember localhost:8080 > BalancerMember pgtr0327.mch.fsc.net:8080 ></Proxy> >(That means also to support this syntax). > >Or to a normal proxy in this case we don't need the new logic. > >>if this code has to hard-code a check for M_CONNECT, why not simply >>avoid the call to ap_proxy_pre_request() in the first place? > >We don't want load balancing for CONNECT.
No, but I just realized that failover for a missing back-end server could be a very good thing. Consider esp. an e-mail proxy where you want to offer several arbitrary smtp back ends, all configured to deliver email from an identical list of domains. But it certainly isn't a high-priority issue, compared with getting the entire modules/proxy/ tree stabilized. Bill
