balancers and members, oh my!

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

As you know, I've been working on adding dynamic +/- of workers
(and balancers) to mod_proxy_balancer and no matter what I do
I always get to the point where having stuff tucked away in
conf structs as well as shared mem just complicates things
to no end... The idea, for example, of having 2 sep functions
to initialize workers for example is ludicrous.

So before we go beta, I plan on removing a bunch of that;
that means getting rid of some functions and combining
others. In other words, breaking the proxy API.

But it needs to be broken to be fixed... Just a head's up.

Re: balancers and members, oh my!

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 1/5/2011 3:37 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> So before we go beta, I plan on removing a bunch of that;
> that means getting rid of some functions and combining
> others. In other words, breaking the proxy API.

Break away :)

> But it needs to be broken to be fixed... Just a head's up.

Not even at beta, so no harm/foul, and even if we were at beta, broken
API's should be refactored.