Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

[Jim Jagielski]

Bumping MMN should do that, right?

> On Feb 15, 2018, at 4:41 AM, Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 06:52:28PM +0100, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>> So can I assume that a backport req to bump-up the field sizes to, at least,
>>> what is in trunk, would not be vetoed?
>> 
>> Not by me, +1.
> 
> It's not getting a veto from me, but as an FYI I know there is at least 
> one module (mod_cluster) which breaks when proxy_shared_worker is 
> extended, because it has some fixed dependency on 
> sizeof(proxy_shared_worker), e.g. it's used in a memcpy or something.  
> We saw a similar case with mod_wsgi and sizeof(request_rec) a while ago.
> 
> I think it's always reasonable to extend structs unless we document an 
> explicit ABI guarantee around *not* doing that, so the third-party 
> modules have to deal with this.
> 
> Regards, Joe