You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2009/05/06 14:39:07 UTC
Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy branch, with the
intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the branch used the
same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory that includes
the balancer methods (as well as the config magic associated with it).
However, if that will be a impediment to actually *getting* these
backports into 2.2, then I'm willing to keep the old structure...
So my question is: if to be able to easily backport the various trunk
proxy improvements into 2.2, we also need to backport the dir
structure as well, is that OK? I don't want to work down that
path only to have it wasted work because people think that such a
directory restructure doesn't make sense within a 2.2.x release.
PS: NO, I am not considering this for 2.2.12! :)
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On May 6, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy branch, with the
>> intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the branch used the
>> same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory that
>> includes
>> the balancer methods (as well as the config magic associated with
>> it).
>>
>> However, if that will be a impediment to actually *getting* these
>> backports into 2.2, then I'm willing to keep the old structure...
>>
>> So my question is: if to be able to easily backport the various trunk
>> proxy improvements into 2.2, we also need to backport the dir
>> structure as well, is that OK? I don't want to work down that
>> path only to have it wasted work because people think that such a
>> directory restructure doesn't make sense within a 2.2.x release.
>>
>> PS: NO, I am not considering this for 2.2.12! :)
>
> I guess at the heart of this is the question, how likely we break some
> part of the users build process for 2.2.x. My feeling is, that the
> additional sub directory for the balancing method implementations is a
> small change and users build process should not break due to this
> additional one directory.
>
> On the positive side apart from easier backports: the new subdirectory
> might make people more curious on how to add a custom balancing
> method,
> so we get a slightly better visibility for the existing provider
> interface.
>
My thoughts as well... :)
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On May 6, 2009, at 11:15 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> In that case, we could keep the trunk dir structure for any
>> "extra" balancers we may add in the 2.2 tree and move the old
>> balancer code back into mod_proxy_balancers.c (or, even better,
>> as sep files that aren't sub-modules :) )
>
> +1
>
This is now done... if we add any other balancers, we can put
them in the ./balancers/ subdir; the current 3 are in sep files
for ease of backporting but are not sub-modules but rather
linked support files ;)
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@gmail.com>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On May 6, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Jim Jagielski
>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 16:59
>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 6, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x
>>>> as the balancers are now in separate modules.
>>>
>>> How so (the breakage, that is)?? You mean they requirement for
>>> them to LoadModule them?
>>
>> Exactly. This is an unpleasant surprise for someone updating an
>> existing installation from 2.2.a to 2.2.b.
>>
>
> In that case, we could keep the trunk dir structure for any
> "extra" balancers we may add in the 2.2 tree and move the old
> balancer code back into mod_proxy_balancers.c (or, even better,
> as sep files that aren't sub-modules :) )
+1
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Jagielski
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 17:10
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
>
>
> On May 6, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Jim Jagielski
> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 16:59
> >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 6, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x
> >>> as the balancers are now in separate modules.
> >>
> >> How so (the breakage, that is)?? You mean they requirement for
> >> them to LoadModule them?
> >
> > Exactly. This is an unpleasant surprise for someone updating an
> > existing installation from 2.2.a to 2.2.b.
> >
>
> In that case, we could keep the trunk dir structure for any
> "extra" balancers we may add in the 2.2 tree and move the old
> balancer code back into mod_proxy_balancers.c (or, even better,
> as sep files that aren't sub-modules :) )
Sounds fine to me. I am not opposed to the directory structure and
separate files per se. Maybe we just link them into mod_proxy_balancer
on 2.2.x whereas we keep them as separate modules on trunk.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Just an update: Currently httpd-2.2-proxy contains the
latest trunk proxy code and the new sub-module layout and
passes all framework tests... I'll start, maybe after lunch,
movement to sub-files, not sub-modules, for the balancers.
On May 6, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> In that case, we could keep the trunk dir structure for any
> "extra" balancers we may add in the 2.2 tree and move the old
> balancer code back into mod_proxy_balancers.c (or, even better,
> as sep files that aren't sub-modules :) )
>
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On May 6, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Jim Jagielski
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 16:59
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
>>
>>
>> On May 6, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x
>>> as the balancers are now in separate modules.
>>
>> How so (the breakage, that is)?? You mean they requirement for
>> them to LoadModule them?
>
> Exactly. This is an unpleasant surprise for someone updating an
> existing installation from 2.2.a to 2.2.b.
>
In that case, we could keep the trunk dir structure for any
"extra" balancers we may add in the 2.2 tree and move the old
balancer code back into mod_proxy_balancers.c (or, even better,
as sep files that aren't sub-modules :) )
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Jagielski
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 16:59
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
>
>
> On May 6, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
> >
> > The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x
> > as the balancers are now in separate modules.
>
> How so (the breakage, that is)?? You mean they requirement for
> them to LoadModule them?
Exactly. This is an unpleasant surprise for someone updating an
existing installation from 2.2.a to 2.2.b.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On May 6, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
> The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x
> as the balancers are now in separate modules.
How so (the breakage, that is)?? You mean they requirement for
them to LoadModule them?
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: jean-frederic clere
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 16:40
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
>
> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Rainer Jung
> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 15:10
> >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
> >>
> >> On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>> It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy
> >> branch, with the
> >>> intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the
> >> branch used the
> >>> same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory
> >> that includes
> >>> the balancer methods (as well as the config magic
> >> associated with it).
> >>> However, if that will be a impediment to actually *getting* these
> >>> backports into 2.2, then I'm willing to keep the old structure...
> >>>
> >>> So my question is: if to be able to easily backport the
> >> various trunk
> >>> proxy improvements into 2.2, we also need to backport the dir
> >>> structure as well, is that OK? I don't want to work down that
> >>> path only to have it wasted work because people think that such a
> >>> directory restructure doesn't make sense within a 2.2.x release.
> >>>
> >>> PS: NO, I am not considering this for 2.2.12! :)
> >> I guess at the heart of this is the question, how likely
> we break some
> >> part of the users build process for 2.2.x. My feeling is, that the
> >> additional sub directory for the balancing method
> implementations is a
> >> small change and users build process should not break due to this
> >> additional one directory.
> >>
> >> On the positive side apart from easier backports: the new
> subdirectory
> >> might make people more curious on how to add a custom
> >> balancing method,
> >> so we get a slightly better visibility for the existing
> >> provider interface.
> >
> > The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x
> > as the balancers are now in separate modules. Thus I am -0.5 on
> > backporting this directory structure to 2.2.x.
>
> May be we could keep the file structure but change the logic
> to the new one.
> For the external proxy_balancer_method we could detect old
> and new ones
> no? (We have the NULL for that).
How so?
The new structure makes them separate modules which require separate
LoadModule lines for each them. Thus existing configurations simply
get broken. IMHO the logic structure (them being providers) is not
different between 2.2.x and trunk.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@gmail.com>.
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Rainer Jung
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 15:10
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
>>
>> On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy
>> branch, with the
>>> intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the
>> branch used the
>>> same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory
>> that includes
>>> the balancer methods (as well as the config magic
>> associated with it).
>>> However, if that will be a impediment to actually *getting* these
>>> backports into 2.2, then I'm willing to keep the old structure...
>>>
>>> So my question is: if to be able to easily backport the
>> various trunk
>>> proxy improvements into 2.2, we also need to backport the dir
>>> structure as well, is that OK? I don't want to work down that
>>> path only to have it wasted work because people think that such a
>>> directory restructure doesn't make sense within a 2.2.x release.
>>>
>>> PS: NO, I am not considering this for 2.2.12! :)
>> I guess at the heart of this is the question, how likely we break some
>> part of the users build process for 2.2.x. My feeling is, that the
>> additional sub directory for the balancing method implementations is a
>> small change and users build process should not break due to this
>> additional one directory.
>>
>> On the positive side apart from easier backports: the new subdirectory
>> might make people more curious on how to add a custom
>> balancing method,
>> so we get a slightly better visibility for the existing
>> provider interface.
>
> The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x
> as the balancers are now in separate modules. Thus I am -0.5 on
> backporting this directory structure to 2.2.x.
May be we could keep the file structure but change the logic to the new one.
For the external proxy_balancer_method we could detect old and new ones
no? (We have the NULL for that).
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Rainer Jung
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 15:10
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
>
> On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy
> branch, with the
> > intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the
> branch used the
> > same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory
> that includes
> > the balancer methods (as well as the config magic
> associated with it).
> >
> > However, if that will be a impediment to actually *getting* these
> > backports into 2.2, then I'm willing to keep the old structure...
> >
> > So my question is: if to be able to easily backport the
> various trunk
> > proxy improvements into 2.2, we also need to backport the dir
> > structure as well, is that OK? I don't want to work down that
> > path only to have it wasted work because people think that such a
> > directory restructure doesn't make sense within a 2.2.x release.
> >
> > PS: NO, I am not considering this for 2.2.12! :)
>
> I guess at the heart of this is the question, how likely we break some
> part of the users build process for 2.2.x. My feeling is, that the
> additional sub directory for the balancing method implementations is a
> small change and users build process should not break due to this
> additional one directory.
>
> On the positive side apart from easier backports: the new subdirectory
> might make people more curious on how to add a custom
> balancing method,
> so we get a slightly better visibility for the existing
> provider interface.
The problem is that this breaks existing configurations for 2.2.x
as the balancers are now in separate modules. Thus I am -0.5 on
backporting this directory structure to 2.2.x.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Backports from trunk to 2.2 proxy-balancers
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy branch, with the
> intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the branch used the
> same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory that includes
> the balancer methods (as well as the config magic associated with it).
>
> However, if that will be a impediment to actually *getting* these
> backports into 2.2, then I'm willing to keep the old structure...
>
> So my question is: if to be able to easily backport the various trunk
> proxy improvements into 2.2, we also need to backport the dir
> structure as well, is that OK? I don't want to work down that
> path only to have it wasted work because people think that such a
> directory restructure doesn't make sense within a 2.2.x release.
>
> PS: NO, I am not considering this for 2.2.12! :)
I guess at the heart of this is the question, how likely we break some
part of the users build process for 2.2.x. My feeling is, that the
additional sub directory for the balancing method implementations is a
small change and users build process should not break due to this
additional one directory.
On the positive side apart from easier backports: the new subdirectory
might make people more curious on how to add a custom balancing method,
so we get a slightly better visibility for the existing provider interface.
Regards,
Rainer