On Tue, November 13, 2007 7:17 pm, Akins, Brian wrote:
We found it much easier to write our own proxy rather than try to plug
away
at mod_proxy...
As I recall, you needed a proxy server that was capable of behaving like
an origin server at the cost of RFC compliance. Under circumstances like
On Tue, November 13, 2007 5:39 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm very much okay with having competition and bake-offs. We have a
number of modules that do similar things (mod_alias / mod_rewrite,
etc.).
I find that mod_proxy is incredibly complex and doesn't even do the
things that it
On Tue, November 13, 2007 6:34 am, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added mod_serf in r594425:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=594425
I've grown exceptionally... tired of looking at mod_proxy. mod_serf is
nice and tight at 440 lines or so.
With just a little more work, I think it
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Graham Leggett
Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. November 2007 11:28
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: mod_serf is in trunk
On Tue, November 13, 2007 6:34 am, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added mod_serf in r594425:
http
Message d'origine-
De : Paul Querna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mardi 13 novembre 2007 05:34
À : dev@httpd.apache.org
Objet : mod_serf is in trunk
I've added mod_serf in r594425:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=594425
I've grown exceptionally... tired
On Nov 12, 2007, at 11:34 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added mod_serf in r594425:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=594425
I've grown exceptionally... tired of looking at mod_proxy.
mod_serf is
nice and tight at 440 lines or so.
With just a little more work, I think it could
On 11/13/07, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've added mod_serf in r594425:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=594425
Nice!
I've grown exceptionally... tired of looking at mod_proxy. mod_serf is
nice and tight at 440 lines or so.
A cool low number. Fits snugly with the
On Nov 13, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Axel-Stephane SMORGRAV wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how would you do this with mod_serf:
ProxyPass /foo http://127.0.0.1/
ProxyPassReverse /foo http://127.0.0.1/
ProxyPassReverse /foo http://localhost/
I think the idea is that mod_serf is not intended to be
On Nov 13, 2007 6:06 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree here. While I would see a benefit of providing a http(s) client
API to httpd via serf and thus getting rid of the somewhat strange
way mod_proxy_http does its requests to a backend system ,I see no
benefit at all
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 10:47:53AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think the idea is that mod_serf is not intended to be a complete
replacement for mod_proxy *at this time*... It's a cool start
and a basis to build on.
The name makes me think of it as a provider module like httpd - in fact
I
On Nov 13, 2007 11:10 AM, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The name makes me think of it as a provider module like httpd - in fact
I think that'd be quite useful (especially going by Justins reluctance
to add it to apr-util which would have been my preferred location).
Exposing some
On Nov 13, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I find that mod_proxy is incredibly complex and doesn't even do the
things that it claims to do properly.
But it does NOT do the stuff it doesn't claim to do
quite well :)
Agreed that mod_proxy has the potential of joining the
On 11/13/07 11:28 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed that mod_proxy has the potential of joining the ranks
of mod_rewrite and mod_ssl as the Modules Most Likely To Make
One Lose Their Minds And Run Screaming Hysterically Through
The Halls.
We found it much easier to write our
On 11/13/2007 05:13 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 11:10 AM, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The name makes me think of it as a provider module like httpd - in fact
I think that'd be quite useful (especially going by Justins reluctance
to add it to apr-util which would
On 11/13/2007 04:39 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 6:06 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree here. While I would see a benefit of providing a http(s) client
API to httpd via serf and thus getting rid of the somewhat strange
way mod_proxy_http does its
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/13/2007 04:39 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I find that mod_proxy is incredibly complex and doesn't even do the
things that it claims to do properly. Rather than spend an inordinate
amount of time trying to fix it, I think we'd be better off trying to
go in a
I've added mod_serf in r594425:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=594425
I've grown exceptionally... tired of looking at mod_proxy. mod_serf is
nice and tight at 440 lines or so.
With just a little more work, I think it could be a production level
reverse proxy.
Oh yeah, and death
17 matches
Mail list logo
