On May 5, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 5, 2009, at 4:45 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
Hi,
There are 2 weird things in the logic.
- In ap_proxy_add_worker_to_balancer() we make a copy of the
worker, why not just the address?
If you looks to child_init() in mod_proxy and mod_proxy_balancer we
see that mod_proxy initialise one copy and mod_proxy_balancer the
other, it is working but one of the copies is never used.
- We want the child_init of mod_proxy before mod_proxy_balancer,
that prevents reset() of the balancer_method to control the
creation of the worker.
Yeah, all on target.
The rub, of course, is that the inits in child_init/mod_proxy *are*
required presently... In fact, did we explicitly added the "already
inited" test due to this interaction?
