No. > On Feb 7, 2018, at 2:08 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >> On Feb 7, 2018, at 1:41 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: >> >> On 07 Feb 2018, at 8:34 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> >> So long as other mod_proxy_* compiled against 2.4.29 do not crash, then no >> - it is doesn't seem we established an ABI contract. The pairing of >> httpd-2.4.30 >> and the 2.4.30 mod_proxy_balancer are obviously in-sync. >> >> >> Digging through the code, the struct proxy_worker_shared is used by the >> ap_proxy_share_worker() and ap_proxy_find_workershm() both declared in >> proxy_util.c and therefore mod_proxy.so. >> >> The only user of these two functions is mod_proxy_balancer - so this looks >> safe as per your definition above. >> >> We need to document whether the name, scheme and hostname fields in >> proxy_worker_shared are intended for debugging purposes only (ie logging, >> status, errors) and are therefore safe to truncate or whether they can be >> used programmatically. I don’t see anything in mod_proxy_balancer that >> references these fields. >> >> IIRC, it's just for mod_status output. Nothing programmatic. > > As an external representation - if mod_status is compiled against 2.4.29, > will it crash with this backport?
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Balancer... Dirk-Willem van Gulik
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Graham Leggett
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... William A Rowe Jr
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Jim Jagielski
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Jim Jagielski
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Yann Ylavic
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... William A Rowe Jr
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Graham Leggett
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Jim Jagielski
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... William A Rowe Jr
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Jim Jagielski
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Graham Leggett
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... William A Rowe Jr
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Graham Leggett
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... William A Rowe Jr
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Graham Leggett
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Jim Jagielski
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... William A Rowe Jr
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... William A Rowe Jr
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... Graham Leggett
- Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - Bal... William A Rowe Jr