Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > > 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.
I never even bothered to check... Brian's initial Email said that it didn't. Are you saying that his Email is wrong and that balancers defined in the main server conf via <Proxy>, as well as their workers, ARE fully inherited by Vhosts? -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
