Yes, forgot to mention this. You need to set at least one option get it created.
Regards Rüdiger Von: ryo takatsuki [mailto:ryotakats...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2014 19:07 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: UDS support for mod_rewrite Just a las quick comment about using a <Proxy> section to define the proxy. I could not make it work using the below snippet: <Proxy "unix:/path/to/some.sock|fcgi://myserver"> </Proxy> Digging into the code, I realized the worker was only created if more arguments were provided (which is not mentioned to be possible in the docs, or I could not find it): <Proxy "unix:/path/to/some.sock|fcgi://myserver" timeout=300 > </Proxy> Then the worker is created and I can remove my extra "ProxyPass" directives. Is it intended to only create the worker if we need to configure its settings? It makes sense but it would be a good improvement to make the worker to be always created if it does not exists, regardless of if some more settings are provided. Sorry about the offtopic and thanks a lot to Rüdiger for the hint! 2014/1/22 ryo takatsuki <ryotakats...@gmail.com<mailto:ryotakats...@gmail.com>> >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<mailto: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. -- 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.
