Thanks for the clarifications. > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Mladen Turk > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. April 2007 13:36 > An: dev@httpd.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Bug 41897 / Session-Stickiness with mod_proxy_balancer > > > Plüm wrote: > > > > > > 1. You want to change sticky in struct proxy_balancer from > > const char *sticky > > > > to something like > > > > const char *sticky[MAX_ENTRIES] > > > > Yes, although MAX_ENTRIES would be 3 for now > (cookie, path and env)
But this means that we break the ABI here. If struct proxy_balancer is part of a public API (I am not sure about this) this would require a major bump and would prevent backporting. > > > > > Why is FOO stored in balancer->sticky-[2]? Is it because > stickysession="FOO" > > is the 3rd occurrence of stickysession for this worker > or is it because of > > the name "FOO"? > > > > Because it's a third occurrence. This is to keep the > compatibility with > current configurations users may have. > In case one is not present it will be skipped during the > find_session_route. > > > 7. What is the purpose of [E] [e]? Where will you search > for balancer->sticky[2]? > > In r->subprocess_env? > > > > Needs to be added. (a simple check for r->subprocess_env) But r->subprocess_env is a table and apr_table_get is never case sensitive. So the case parameter does not make sense for environment variables. To be honest I do not understand why we need the case parameter at all (also for cookie and path). I did not understand the hint you gave regarding PHP and ASP on Jean-Frederic's question on the same matter. Regards Rüdiger
