>Your "hack" has the additional benefit is being >a pooled connection and not a one-shot, and therefore >will have better performance. But that isn't related >to UDS at all.
Well, it is related to UDS in the sense of being my solution to make my rewrites end up serving content obtained through a Unix socket :). I initially had the old version of the UDS patch working with mod_rewrite (using the default forward proxy worker) but it broke with newer versions of the patch so I figured out that way of tricking mod_rewrite. Regarding using a <Proxy> section to define the workers, I see the code that should be defining it but I'm not able to make it work. I will investigate it a little further, thanks! Best regards, Juanjo. 2014/1/22 Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net> > On 1/22/2014 5:48 AM, Juan José Medina Godoy wrote: > > Do you think that approach is safe or is it likely to break at some > > point? (relaying on the workers being located by url in that way, > > without having to provide the socket in the rewrite) > > Seems safe... and quite clever, actually. > > -- > Daniel Ruggeri > > -- I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die.
