On 07/10/2014 03:57 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/09/2014 04:26 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
I forgot proxysection(), why not handle the
ap_proxy_define_match_worker() case there too?
I'm not sure I see what you mean. There's
On 07/09/2014 04:26 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
could you please check the patch I've attached to this email?
Looks good to me.
It changes following
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/09/2014 04:26 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
I forgot proxysection(), why not handle the
ap_proxy_define_match_worker() case there too?
I'm not sure I see what you mean. There's match_worker created in
proxysection(), or do
On 04/29/2014 03:51 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 29, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Because later we have to match the URL of request with some proxy_worker.
If you configure ProxyPassMatch like this:
ProxyPassMatch ^/test/(\d+)/foo.jpg http://x/$1/foo.jpg
Then
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
could you please check the patch I've attached to this email?
Looks good to me.
It changes following parts of Yann's patch:
1. keep only single name of the worker stored in shared memory.
2. when ProxyPassMatch is
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
could you please check the patch I've attached to this email?
Looks good to me.
It changes following parts of Yann's patch:
1. keep only
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Still another solution for these workers would be to reuse the
ap_regmatch_t vector from proxy_trans() to exact match the worker's
name (with its zero or more $N replaced with strings offsets from
vector[N], like
On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:57 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jan,
sorry for the late.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi again,
the patch has been here for some time already. I hesitate to commit it to
trunk without any review, because
On 04/29/2014 01:04 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:57 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jan,
sorry for the late.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi again,
the patch has been here for some time already. I hesitate to commit
On Apr 29, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
That's what we do with current patch I think, don't we? In the patch, we
create char *match_name which is NULL when the worker_name is not regex and
contains the escaped name if regex is used (with $N replaced by '*').
On 04/29/2014 02:22 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 29, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
That's what we do with current patch I think, don't we? In the patch, we create char
*match_name which is NULL when the worker_name is not regex and contains the escaped name if
On Apr 29, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Because later we have to match the URL of request with some proxy_worker.
If you configure ProxyPassMatch like this:
ProxyPassMatch ^/test/(\d+)/foo.jpg http://x/$1/foo.jpg
Then the proxy_worker name would be
On 04/29/2014 03:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 29, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Because later we have to match the URL of request with some proxy_worker.
If you configure ProxyPassMatch like this:
ProxyPassMatch ^/test/(\d+)/foo.jpg http://x/$1/foo.jpg
Then
On Apr 29, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Because later we have to match the URL of request with some proxy_worker.
If you configure ProxyPassMatch like this:
ProxyPassMatch ^/test/(\d+)/foo.jpg http://x/$1/foo.jpg
Then the proxy_worker name would be
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Because later we have to match the URL of request with some proxy_worker.
If you configure ProxyPassMatch like this:
ProxyPassMatch ^/test/(\d+)/foo.jpg
On 04/25/2014 02:57 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Hi Jan,
sorry for the late.
No problem :).
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi again,
the patch has been here for some time already. I hesitate to commit it to
trunk without any review, because it changes the
Hi Jan,
sorry for the late.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi again,
the patch has been here for some time already. I hesitate to commit it to
trunk without any review, because it changes the core code in mod_proxy and
I'm afraid that there could exist
Hi again,
the patch has been here for some time already. I hesitate to commit it
to trunk without any review, because it changes the core code in
mod_proxy and I'm afraid that there could exist more corner-cases I'm
not aware of.
On the other side (and to motivate someone with deeper
Hi,
can you please check the attached patch? I think it should be closer to
the proper way how to fix this than the previous one.
It works properly for me even for URLs with '*' and '?'.
Regards,
Jan Kaluza
On 03/21/2014 03:27 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Yes, selecting the right worker is all
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/18/2014 02:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to define wildcard workers when the URL is
known to be a regexp substitution?
For
oups, sorry for the numbering.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/18/2014 02:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
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 ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
oups, sorry for the numbering.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:59
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
On 03/18/2014 02:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to define wildcard workers when the URL is
known to be a regexp substitution?
For these workers' URLs, the dollars (plus the following digit) could
be
On 03/19/2014 09:59 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 ylavic@gmail.com
wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to define wildcard workers when the URL is
known to be a regexp substitution?
For these workers' URLs, the
On 03/19/2014 10:13 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 03/19/2014 09:59 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 ylavic@gmail.com
wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to define wildcard workers when the URL is
known to be a regexp
This is also needed to fix ProxyPassMatch with UDS. Without this patch
following configuration does not work:
ProxyPassMatch ^/web/(.*\.php)$
unix:/run/php-fpm/fpm.sock|fcgi://127.0.0.1/var/www/html/$1
If nobody is against, I will commit it to trunk later this week.
Regards,
Jan Kaluza
On
Wouldn't it be possible to define wildcard workers when the URL is
known to be a regexp substitution?
For these workers' URLs, the dollars (plus the following digit) could
be replaced by a wildcard (ie. *) and ap_proxy_get_worker() could then
use ap_strcasecmp_match() against the requested URL.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to define wildcard workers when the URL is
known to be a regexp substitution?
For these workers' URLs, the dollars (plus the following digit) could
be replaced by a wildcard (ie. *) and
On 03/18/2014 02:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to define wildcard workers when the URL is
known to be a regexp substitution?
For these workers' URLs, the dollars (plus the following digit) could
be
30 matches
Mail list logo
