Re: FYI: Backport of mod_proxy_hcheck

2016-02-12 Thread Jim Jagielski 
The patchfile, minus docs, can be found at:

http://home.apache.org/~jim/patches/hcheck-2.4.patch

Thx!

Re: FYI: Backport of mod_proxy_hcheck

2016-02-12 Thread Jim Jagielski 
I am following the way we've handled that struct before when
we've needed to adjust (eg: uds_path)...

> On Feb 12, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> The patchfile, minus docs, can be found at:
>> 
>>http://home.apache.org/~jim/patches/hcheck-2.4.patch
> 
> How about the changes to struct proxy_worker_shared w.r.t. backportability?

Re: FYI: Backport of mod_proxy_hcheck

2016-02-12 Thread Yann Ylavic 
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> The patchfile, minus docs, can be found at:
>
> http://home.apache.org/~jim/patches/hcheck-2.4.patch

How about the changes to struct proxy_worker_shared w.r.t. backportability?

Re: FYI: Backport of mod_proxy_hcheck

2016-02-11 Thread Eric Covener 
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> I am sending a trial balloon up regarding the viability
> of proposing mod_proxy_hcheck be backported to 2.4.x...
>
> If this sounds like a Good Idea, I will work on said
> proposal.

Anything controversial in the final stuff? Only thing ringing a bell
is  the meaning of those status flags?

-- 
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com

Re: FYI: Backport of mod_proxy_hcheck

2016-02-11 Thread Stefan Eissing 
I'am all for backporting nice things, however I did not follow all discussions 
and cannot judge the impact.

> Am 11.02.2016 um 16:25 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
> 
> I am sending a trial balloon up regarding the viability
> of proposing mod_proxy_hcheck be backported to 2.4.x...
> 
> If this sounds like a Good Idea, I will work on said
> proposal.

Re: FYI: Backport of mod_proxy_hcheck

2016-02-11 Thread Jim Jagielski 

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Eric Covener  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> I am sending a trial balloon up regarding the viability
>> of proposing mod_proxy_hcheck be backported to 2.4.x...
>> 
>> If this sounds like a Good Idea, I will work on said
>> proposal.
> 
> Anything controversial in the final stuff? Only thing ringing a bell
> is  the meaning of those status flags?
> 

Better documented in the new reverse-proxy HowTo guide.