On 03/27/2006 10:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> > > What we needed to avoid was the case where a balancer defined in > VhostA leaked into VhostB. You should not be able to define > balancers in one Vhost and have them available in others; it's That makes things clearer to me. Thanks. BTW: I agree with this. > certainly a weird regression. Now *inheriting* one from the main > server does make sense, kindof, and that's what we're trying > to do here. Ok, but this actually works already without your patch. We only face the weird issue right now that an (later) unused empty balancer with the same name gets created in the vhost. Next question: How to deal with parameters set for the balancer via ProxySet? Currently these settings get lost. OTH it wouldn't make sense to apply them to the balancer inherited from the main server if do not create a *complete copy* of this balancer. Ok. Thats enough devils advocate for now :-). Regards Rüdiger
