You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modproxy-dev@apache.org by rb...@covalent.net on 2000/11/15 20:28:00 UTC
BUFF and the proxy. :-(
So, I am in the middle of trying to remove BUFF from the proxy. I am now
95% convinced that removing BUFF is the wrong solution. What we really
want to do, is trim BUFF to almost nothing, and just use BUFF for the
communication to the back-end server. I should have a patch that does
this VERY soon, and I will post it then, but I wanted to let everybody
know what I am thinking.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: BUFF and the proxy. :-(
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > It doesn't work. I started looking at creating a BUFF-lite, but all the
> > really hairy stuff is still in there, life charset
> > translation. ARGH! Let's start by putting BUFF-lite in the proxy, and
> > see if we can come up with a better solution later.
>
> With the stripping of the cache into it's own separate module, this
> simplifies mod_proxy into a dead simple straight through pipe that does
> nothing other than forward the request from the front client to the back
> server - could this not be an approach in the meantime, so that no
> "BUFF-like" functionality is needed at all...?
>
Yes, in fact this works well as part of the proxy development process,
so the caching filter can be done and tested separately. The include and
protocol filters are the essential part at the moment.
--
Chuck
Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group
chuck@topsail.org
Re: BUFF and the proxy. :-(
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> It doesn't work. I started looking at creating a BUFF-lite, but all the
> really hairy stuff is still in there, life charset
> translation. ARGH! Let's start by putting BUFF-lite in the proxy, and
> see if we can come up with a better solution later.
With the stripping of the cache into it's own separate module, this
simplifies mod_proxy into a dead simple straight through pipe that does
nothing other than forward the request from the front client to the back
server - could this not be an approach in the meantime, so that no
"BUFF-like" functionality is needed at all...?
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: BUFF and the proxy. :-(
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > So, I am in the middle of trying to remove BUFF from the proxy. I am now
> > 95% convinced that removing BUFF is the wrong solution. What we really
> > want to do, is trim BUFF to almost nothing, and just use BUFF for the
> > communication to the back-end server. I should have a patch that does
> > this VERY soon, and I will post it then, but I wanted to let everybody
> > know what I am thinking.
> >
> I'll add the other 5%, I'm tearing my hair out too. Do we want to move
> this BUFF-lite into the proxy itself so it's out of Apache totally?
It doesn't work. I started looking at creating a BUFF-lite, but all the
really hairy stuff is still in there, life charset
translation. ARGH! Let's start by putting BUFF-lite in the proxy, and
see if we can come up with a better solution later.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: BUFF and the proxy. :-(
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> So, I am in the middle of trying to remove BUFF from the proxy. I am now
> 95% convinced that removing BUFF is the wrong solution. What we really
> want to do, is trim BUFF to almost nothing, and just use BUFF for the
> communication to the back-end server. I should have a patch that does
> this VERY soon, and I will post it then, but I wanted to let everybody
> know what I am thinking.
>
I'll add the other 5%, I'm tearing my hair out too. Do we want to move
this BUFF-lite into the proxy itself so it's out of Apache totally?
--
Chuck
Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group
chuck@topsail.org
Re: BUFF and the proxy. :-(
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
I'm not sure that this works either, because this requires that the BUFF
retain the ability to do charset translation which is
bogus. ARGH!!!!! I'm still trudging, and making slow progress. Patches
to be committed soon.
Ryan
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> So, I am in the middle of trying to remove BUFF from the proxy. I am now
> 95% convinced that removing BUFF is the wrong solution. What we really
> want to do, is trim BUFF to almost nothing, and just use BUFF for the
> communication to the back-end server. I should have a patch that does
> this VERY soon, and I will post it then, but I wanted to let everybody
> know what I am thinking.
>
> Ryan
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------