On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > If fact it works if I use the following rule (sorry to have not > thought about it before) : > > RewriteRule "^/(.*)$" "http://localhost/$1"; [P] > <Proxy "unix:/tmp/backend.sock|http://localhost"; disablereuse=off> > </Proxy> > > Since the worker is registered without the UDS path, it's URL the http one. > However this raises the question about different worker with the same > (non-UDS) URL, one with UDS and the other without. > Shouldn't this be checked at startup to avoid strange things to happen?
My bad, httpd will define the first one and reuse it for the others. The <Proxy> section works well with UDS though... So maybe there's no patch to apply, simply document about not using the UDS part in RewriteRule. > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >> On Feb 25, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Feb 24, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I use the following config : >>>>> >>>>> <VirtualHost 127.0.0.1:60080> >>>>> ServerName localhost:60080 >>>>> >>>>> RewriteEngine on >>>>> RewriteRule "^/(.*)$" "unix:/tmp/backend.sock|http://localhost/$1"; >>>>> [P,NE] >>>>> >>>>> <Proxy "unix:/tmp/backend.sock|http://localhost"; disablereuse=off> >>>>> </Proxy> >>>>> </VirtualHost> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why the <Proxy> container? What is that designed to do >>>> or what is it there for? I'm pretty sure that's the >>>> issue. >>>> >>>> You are just trying to Proxy all requests to the socket at >>>> /tmp/backend.sock, right? >>>> >>> >>> Right, but this config has no other purpose than testing that one can >>> use a RewriteRule and a <Proxy> declaration for UDS backend >>> connections to be reusable (this one is with the http scheme, but it >>> could be fcgi or any other proxy scheme...), so that I can give my +1 >>> to STATUS ;) >>> >>> Should this simply work? >>> >> >> The use of the UDS path in <Proxy> statements is not supported; >> I never anticipated the need for it.. It's a ProxyPass and/or BalancerMember >> "enhancement" (ie: anything that defines a "worker" instead of >> a "path"). >>
