Re: mod_proxy, another case of ignoring the filter stack?

[Brian Akins <br...@turner.com>]

Sander Striker wrote:

> Ok, let me tell you why I want it.  I want to implement a directive
> called CacheErrorServeStale, which, when it hits the CACHE_SAVE filter
> say with a 503 Service Temporarily Unavailable, and has a 
> cache->stale_handle,
> continues as if it would have received a 304 Not Modified.

That's one use of the request_status hook in mod_proxy.  If mod_cache 
registered a handler for it, it could handle all instances where the 
proxy fails.


-- 
Brian Akins
Lead Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies

Re: mod_proxy, another case of ignoring the filter stack?

[Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>]

Brian Akins wrote:
> Sander Striker wrote:
> 
>> Ok, let me tell you why I want it.  I want to implement a directive
>> called CacheErrorServeStale, which, when it hits the CACHE_SAVE filter
>> say with a 503 Service Temporarily Unavailable, and has a 
>> cache->stale_handle,
>> continues as if it would have received a 304 Not Modified.
> 
> That's one use of the request_status hook in mod_proxy.  If mod_cache 
> registered a handler for it, it could handle all instances where the 
> proxy fails.

No, mod_cache doesn't have to know what the origin is.  It can be
anything from a custom handler, a cgi, etc.  This list happens to
include mod_proxy, but I don't think we need to handle mod_proxy
any differently.

Rudigers suggestion of pushing an error bucket down the filter
stack seems the best solution, which I'm working on implementing.

Sander