It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy branch, with the
intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the branch used the
same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory that includes
the balancer methods (as well as the config magic associated with it).
However, if
On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy branch, with the
intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the branch used the
same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory that includes
the balancer methods (as well as the
On May 6, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy branch, with the
intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the branch used the
same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory that
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Rainer Jung
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 15:10
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy
branch
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Rainer Jung
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 15:10
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2
On May 6, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x
as the balancers are now in separate modules.
How so (the breakage, that is)?? You mean they requirement for
them to LoadModule them?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: jean-frederic clere
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 16:40
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Rainer Jung
Gesendet
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 16:59
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
On May 6, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
The problem is that this breaks existing
On May 6, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 16:59
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
On May 6, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 17:10
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
On May 6, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von
Just an update: Currently httpd-2.2-proxy contains the
latest trunk proxy code and the new sub-module layout and
passes all framework tests... I'll start, maybe after lunch,
movement to sub-files, not sub-modules, for the balancers.
On May 6, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
In that
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 16:59
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
On May 6, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Plüm
On May 6, 2009, at 11:15 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
In that case, we could keep the trunk dir structure for any
extra balancers we may add in the 2.2 tree and move the old
balancer code back into mod_proxy_balancers.c (or, even better,
as sep files that aren't
13 matches
Mail list logo
