Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:38 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > 2. Does httpd core expose a VirtualHost Identifier in its API and > what would the semantic properties of such an identifier be? > >

Re: The Case for Managed Domains

Forgive the top-post, Gmail app sucks. Thanks for taking the time for tl;dr - it sums up the current situation really well. I pointed out some months ago that the matching foo in vhosts is weak, since we have a 1:1 ip:port relationship. We determined that can change in the next iteration to

Re: New ServerUID directive

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:38 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > > 2. Does httpd core expose a VirtualHost Identifier in its API and > what would the semantic properties of such an identifier be? > Yes, it does. It's the server_rec. That contains all the info

Re: The Case for Managed Domains

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Luca Toscano wrote: >> I am a bit ignorant about mod_bmx so I'd need to ask some follow up >> questions: how is it going to solve Stefan's points? As a far as I can

Re: svn commit: r1822879 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

You can't retrieve in the register fn hook, without creating load order dependencies. On Feb 2, 2018 02:44, "Joe Orton" wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:01:41PM -, yla...@apache.org wrote: > > Author: ylavic > > Date: Thu Feb 1 15:01:40 2018 > > New Revision:

Re: New ServerUID directive

> Am 04.02.2018 um 15:32 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > > >> On Feb 2, 2018, at 8:05 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> That's a new directive too, very specialized (though it's your point). >> Wouldn't it end up being declined to other modules one day or the