On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
> On 03/18/2014 02:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be possible to define wildcard workers when the URL is
>>> known to be a regexp substitution?
>>> For these workers' URLs,
oups, sorry for the numbering.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
>> On 03/18/2014 02:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to define wildcard
Just a thought, but wouldn't the better place to "fix" this
be in ap_proxy_get_worker()??
On Mar 21, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> oups, sorry for the numbering.
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
>>> On 03/18
Yes, selecting the right worker is all in ap_proxy_get_worker(), but
probably also add_pass() and proxysection() would need something like
ap_proxy_define_wildcard_worker() to register this kind of worker
(save the original name, ...).
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Just
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Just looking for verification here ;)
No worries.
>
> Thx!
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> As noted, from how I understand it, currently we allow it to
>> build BUT the behavior is not as expected or designed, since
>> the expected behavior *r
