On Feb 25, 2014, at 8:15 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] >> Sent: Dienstag, 25. Februar 2014 14:09 >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Subject: Re: mod_rewrite/proxy UDS issues >> >> >> 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: >>>> >>> >>> 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"). > > But IMHO it should for consistency reasons and in order to set options on > these workers when using mod_rewrite. > Yeah... the "issue" is that mod_rewrite support was not part of the original enhancement request. And so there are likely holes in the expectation that mod_rewrite "fully" supports it.
