> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Can you provide a simple but somehow complete proxy_hcheck config snippet?
> I'll set up a test and check what's wrong.
>
> Regards,
>
A very simple one is:
ProxyHCExpr foof2 {hc('body') !~ /domain is established/}
BalancerMember htt
As I read ap_expr, it should be:
diff --git a/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_hcheck.c b/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_hcheck.c
index 1667e77..b211d1c 100644
--- a/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_hcheck.c
+++ b/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_hcheck.c
@@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ static int hc_expr_lookup(ap_expr_lookup_parms *parms)
Am 21.01.2016 um 19:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
That is with:
ProxyHCExpr foof2 {hc('body') !~ /domain is established/}
With
ProxyHCExpr foof2 {kept_body('body') !~ /domain is established/}
Can you provide a simple but somehow complete proxy_hcheck config
snippet? I'll set up a test and
This looks wrong:
case AP_EXPR_FUNC_STRING:
/* Function HC() is implemented by us.
*/
if (strcasecmp(parms->name, "HC") == 0) {
*parms->func = hc_expr_func_fn;
*parms->data = NULL;
return OK;
}
break;
Specifically:
That is with:
ProxyHCExpr foof2 {hc('body') !~ /domain is established/}
With
ProxyHCExpr foof2 {kept_body('body') !~ /domain is established/}
it works as expected.
Thx!
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I get:
>
>AH00102: [Thu Jan 21 18:05:44 2016] file util_ex
I get:
AH00102: [Thu Jan 21 18:05:44 2016] file util_expr_eval.c, line 218,
assertion "data != ((void*)0)" failed
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Am 21.01.2016 um 17:55 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> even better!
>>
>> sounds cool.
>
> First impl done in r1726038.
>
>
Am 21.01.2016 um 17:55 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
even better!
sounds cool.
First impl done in r1726038.
I guess you have everything in place to do a quick test? That would be nice.
svn log is:
Implement expr lookup in mod_proxy_hcheck for
variables whose names start with "HC_" and for
the new
even better!
sounds cool.
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Am 21.01.2016 um 17:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Did you want me to work on it, or are you?
>
> I just had some late lunch and started to think closer about it. Since
> kept_body was previously only used for requ
Am 21.01.2016 um 17:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Did you want me to work on it, or are you?
I just had some late lunch and started to think closer about it. Since
kept_body was previously only used for request bodies, wouldn't it be
nicer to *not* expose the HC response body under that name in t
Did you want me to work on it, or are you?
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Sounds good to me!!
>
> thx!
>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>
>> I should have asked earlier: wouldn't it be more suitable to implement to
>> response body as a variab
Ah ok, nice, I'll have a look.
Thanks for the quick explanation.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Well, mod_proxy_hcheck is actually abusing the r->kept_body brigade
> for its own uses. When we issue a GET for the health check, we simply
> copy the buckets from the respons
Well, mod_proxy_hcheck is actually abusing the r->kept_body brigade
for its own uses. When we issue a GET for the health check, we simply
copy the buckets from the response from the backend that comprises the
body to r->kept_body. That way, ap_expr can now apply expressions
against it to check if t
Is r->kept_body ever initiallized on the backend side, wouldn't
mod_proxy need to somehow add mod_request's filters?
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Sounds good to me!!
>
> thx!
>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>
>> I should have asked earlier: would
Sounds good to me!!
thx!
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> I should have asked earlier: wouldn't it be more suitable to implement to
> response body as a variable instead of a function?
>
> When looking at server/util_expr_eval.c, I find request_var_names and
> request_v
I should have asked earlier: wouldn't it be more suitable to implement
to response body as a variable instead of a function?
When looking at server/util_expr_eval.c, I find request_var_names and
request_var_fn. The former is a list of variable names, and the latter
implements returning the val
15 matches
Mail list logo
